Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The following threads are preserved as an archive of a inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3. The final decision was no consensus. Please do not modify the text.

Kww 3 - Bureaucrat discussion

I would appreciate input from other bureaucrats in determining whether a consensus for promotion exists in this case. In light of canvassing issues surrounding this discussion, I considered extending it so as to "dilute" the effect of any canvassed participants. In the end I decided not to do this, as:

  1. The canvassing that has been established to have taken place did so late on the 15th - although the numerical balance was slightly different at that time, it was not significantly so, and the discussions look to me very similar at that time [1]. In other words I do not think I'd have found the presence of a consensus easier to determine then than now.
  2. In the circumstances, I think there are real reasons to believe that off-wiki communications would continue were this RfA to be extended making any eventual consensus murkier not clearer.

Looking at the discussion as it stands, I confess that I find myself rather stuck. On the one hand, although a number of opposers allege a lack of improvement since previous RfAs, there is a dearth of links showing problematic behaviour since then. Much of the opposition is based on conduct that was found problematic in previous RfAs, but little is there to rebut those supporters who say that those issues are a thing of the past. There are concerns about how representative of the community as a whole the opposers are, and whether they are dispropotionately those involved in WP:ARS.

On the other hand, those opposing on the whole make rational points about temperament and a perceived likeliness to use sysop tools too readily and too harshly. There is also a suggestion that Kww does not respond well to criticism and may have trouble respecting a consensus he disagrees with. They suggest that more time is needed to develop some of the "softer" skills that administrators may benefit from.

The supporters do acknowledge those concerns to some extent, agreeing that Kww is "abbrasive" but arguing that this is not always a bad thing. They also point out that diffs of problematic behaviour predate the last RfA, something that I have highlighted above.

Numerically, this is at the very low end of the area where bureaucrat discretion lies, though there is evidence to suggest that the discussion was brought to the attention of those like to oppose who would not otherwise have participated (as I indicated above, I do not think this has made a significant difference). I do not think this is a clear-cut case by any means however and, especially as I am now much less involved with the community than I used to be, I would appreciate input from other bureacrats. WJBscribe (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, that is indeed a possibility. Has this ever been done before on en.wiki? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not done here before, but it has been used in similar forms at Meta and Wikiversity with a fair degree of success. MBisanz talk 17:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it a bit problematic to decide after the fact that the result should be of a type not widely discussed on the wiki (and therefore unexpected by the participants). So far the concept of "trial adminship" and "probationary periods" has had a luke awrm response at best on enwiki. The commons proposal also looks a tad bureaucratic to me... WJBscribe (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't want to try anything weird or provisional. I think we can safely say there is a consensus to promote if you all think there is a consensus to grant provisional adminship. And in fact this looks like a good case of bureaucrat discretion used for promotion in the spirit of Raul654's promotion of Ryulong. Although we are numerically on a borderline, the opposition is mainly concerned with abrasiveness and disrespect toward certain minority viewpoints. Although there have been some inflammatory statements, in general it seems that Kww has not caused damage that a truly reckless user could cause even without admin tools, and in fact as the supporters point out, has been a real asset to the encyclopedia. His answers to the questions reflect caution, which is important because as bureaucrats we must not only gauge consensus but protect the encyclopedia against damage. I would like to hear some more opinions on this. It's certainly not clear-cut, but I would promote. Thoughts? Andre (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can get to this discussion in a meaningful manner no sooner than Monday morning. If it's closed by then, so be it. Sorry, but I'm finding my onwiki time extremely limited currently. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is only a preliminary comment, because I've not much time. I do not think the probational period is a good idea; there are too many undiscussed consequences of that. The idea can be proposed and put to the community at another time, but I think it unwise to instate it based on discussion particular to a single RfA. In brief, I'd not be opposed to a promotion here: numerically, Kww has very strong support, and there is evidence of non-trivial canvassing. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a number of factors here that lead me to believe promotion is the best course of action. First of all, a significant subset of the opposition base themselves on events that occurred – at the earliest – 10 months ago (see Oppose 1). It's my assessment that these opposes are weakened somewhat by the age of the evidence in which they are rooted. There is a noted shortage of recent diffs cited by the opposition – some of the opposers link to events in the September period of this year, but none of those links underpin the opposition in the way Ikip's evidence does. Secondly, another subset of the opposition seems motivated by disagreement over content inclusion philosophy. In my mind, this type of objection is usually weak, and was partially responsible for the battleground atmosphere referenced by Kingturtle below. Lastly, I think it a dangerous thing to attempt to quantify the effect of canvassing when it's exposed – we may guess, but it's rare that we are properly able to discard it as negligible in any kind of definite fashion. It seems not to have tipped the RfA, but it's something that shouldn't be ignored. Giving all of this due and relative consideration, I come to the conclusion that, while some of the opposition express legitimate concerns about the candidate's temperament and tolerance, the support prevails. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two points. I certainly don't mind waiting until Monday for Dweller to give his complete thoughts; there isn't a rush here or anything. Also, I do understand the opposition to the temporary probation period, so it would probably be best to keep the outcomes limited to Promote or Unsuccessful for this RFA. MBisanz talk 23:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial comment: I concur that it is preferable to wait until Monday for Dweller, and that we should shy away from provisional adminship. If we decide that absent the canvassing there is consensus for KWW to become an admin, that adminship should be the standard one. -- Avi (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fair enough. It may also give EVula a chance to comment, though he's pretty busy atm. Or indeed some of the other crats. I confess I'm still on the fence, so a bit more thinking time won't hurt. I find Taxman's points quite persuasive, but then again I also think there is merit in what Andre and Anon Diss have said. WJBscribe (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be very curious to see what Dweller has in store for us, but at the moment, here are my thoughts:

I'm on the fence when it comes to probationary adminship at the moment, but I do feel very uncomfortable about going that route without discussion from the community at large. With regards to this RFA, I don't consider canvassing to be a major issue here, because it appears through discussion that most of those canvassed know what canvassing is, and know not to be swayed by it.

Instead, I consider the main issue to be the mix of different types of opposition we typically see in controversial RFAs. Some of the !votes I perceive to be more about politics and viewpoint more so than actual demonstration of potential misuse, and while they may have generated more substantial discussion than usual, I do not consider them to be particularly worthy of consideration in this RFA. Others, however, have offered valid cause for concern in terms of general attitude, a view that has been accepted in the supports and neutrals. I consider this point to be insuperable, but I noted that there were many diffs cite that dated back over a year. This does not sit very well with me. Certainly the concern that they cause in terms of long-term attitude (which as we know is very difficult to change) is valid, but the magnitude to which they have been used is just as concerning to me. There has been a general agreement that Kww has composed himself well through the course of this RFA and related discussions.

The general vibe I get from the sum of the supports, opposes, and neutrals is one of uneasy acceptance (how else could we have revived the perennial discussion on probationary adminship?), which is perfectly understandable in the midst of our recent admin troubles. Based on these points (I'm definitely still open to outside comment), I would concur with Andrevan to promote. bibliomaniac15 00:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in many ways with Will's analysis of the situation above. I find much of the rationale in the oppose opinions to be weaker and based on old information without much evidence of the continuance of those issues. On the other hand the oppose comments cite concerns that are varied and at times well argued and those concerns are echoed in some of the support comments. In the end I don't find the canvassing issue to be a major factor here since even if all of the potential convassed oppose comments were simply thrown out without considering any of the supports it doesn't bring the end result into a clear consensus area. Weighing all of the arguments, I feel that the level of opposition is too high to consider this a consensus to promote. Even if it isn't as well argued, there is simply too much opposition to ignore enough of it to consider this a consensus to promote. I also nod my hat to Matt for bringing up ideas that have been tried elsewhere so that they can be considered here, but will note that the conversations on that idea have been generally negative here on en.wiki and even if they weren't a single contested RfA would not be the best time to try it out. The community generally doesn't give us that remit. - Taxman Talk 02:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overwhelmed by the idea of another level of bureaucracy here, i.e. a probationary period for admins. Either the community trusts them or they don't and the WP:RFA mechanism, while a continual source of "is broken" commentary, does allow the community a good chance to air their opinions, and in cases like this, a good chance for bureaucrats to show it's not just a number-crunching exercise, actually reading the nature of support, oppose and neutral opinions.. As for the canvassing, per Anonymous Dissident, attempting to quantify the effect of it is problematic and, at best, a guess. I would also concur with the general view that Kww has conducted himself well throughout all of this and while the % is just below the "usual range", I would support the idea that this is an "uneasy promotion". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My opinion (although as always, I am open to changing my mind if suitably convinced by reasoned arguments) of the state of the RfA is that there is not a consensus to promote here. Yes, many of the opposition's quotations are from older statements, but the opposition has stated more than once that they have not seen significant change in the editor's behavior and inter-editor relationships to justify changing their impressions, and thus their confidence in Kevin's ability to use the admin tools appropriately and impartially. In general, one's editorial stance should be irrelevant as to one's ability to function as a sysop; however, one's repartee with others is extremely relevant, and voicing a fear that an editor's behavior vis-a-vis other editors, not content, indicates a potential inability to use the tools properly is a very legitimate opposition. Reading the oppositions, I see them to be consistent in this regard, bringing both older examples and the lament of not enough indication of change together with newer examples. What makes this more difficult is the number of opposers who switched to support, including those who were quoted as "per so-and-so" (e.g. Jack Merridew). However, looking at those opposers who maintained their position, I find that pretty much each one voiced an opinion explaining their actions, and view them as independent of the original. Even if they hadn't, there is is precedent to continue to judge this as independent as I well know. As such, I find the nature, consistency, and volume of the opposition sufficient to indicate that there currently is not a community consensus to allow Kevin the adminship tools, but that Kevin should realize that the one roadblock that appears to stands in his way is his method of dealing with others, and if he were able to find a way to simultaneously maintain his convictions but do so consistently in a manner respectful to others, he would have the community's support in the future. -- Avi (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It is my interpretation that prior to the canvassing there was not sufficient support to promote and that !votes cast after that did not have a significant impact on the final results. The criticisms in opposition were legitimate and substantial (excluding a few that were petty and knitpicky), and cannot be ignored. As bureaucrats, we need not only to assess the strength of those supporting, but also the strength of those in opposition. Yes, some criticisms involved events that took place over a year ago, but there is no let-bygones-be-bygones RfA policy. Unfortunately, if events from long ago still bother a lot of editors, we need to respect that. As for the more recent Meursault2004 / Bambifan101 incident, it deserved a better, healthier approach from Kww. In this particular RfA there simply is not enough support to offset the concerns of the legitimate opposition.

I must also add that I am a disappointed in the amount of tit-for-tat puerility that took place in this RfA, along with the amount of baiting and the difficulty people had in ignoring the laid bait. Please stop using RfAs as your battleground. Please end the side conversations and the unfolding of personal agendas. We should consider limiting each editor to only ten posts per RfA. Anything more than that should fire up some major red flags. This is not elementary school playgrounds. This arena deserves the mature sides of all of us. The point of RfAs is not only to determine if a candidate is ready to be an administrator, but also to provide constructive criticism so the candidate can grow from the experience. Failing an RfA is not the end of an effort, but part of a process. We want people to learn from this feedback, then (if they so choose) put this advice into action so that they may someday become an admin. This is a healthy way to proceed. If the candidate grows, Wikipedia benefits. For those of you who feel Kww should never become an admin, I hope you re-assess your position - because in my book such notions show a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia's basic philosophy.

Lastly, I am opposed to probationary or conditional adminships. It would send a message that we don't fully trust new admins. New admins would then be less likely to take difficult actions, thereby harming Wikipedia through admin inaction and hindering their ability to learn. Probationary adminships could also cause candidates to be promoted who aren't ready to be admins. It's okay to say no to candidates with gray-area results.

Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with your assessment of the behavior of many of the contributors to this RfA and RfA and Wikipedia in general would be a better place if more people took the advice you've given and made more efforts to avoid this type of behavior in all areas of the project. As Anonymous Dissident partly mentions more of the poor behavior is displayed in the opinions in opposition. I find myself somewhat swayed by that, what about you? I tend to think that if the behavior is motivated by tit-for-tat or other poor behavioral concerns that the real reasoning for the opinion is even weaker than what is written. - Taxman Talk 13:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxman, I removed the petty and vendetta-style oppositional arguments from my assessment, but even with that, I still conclude that the other concerns raised were reasonable, fair-minded and in sufficient numbers to negate consensus. Kingturtle (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished looking through all of this and find myself in almost total agreement with Kingturtle. I don't see sufficient consensus to promote, and it doesn't appear that the known canvassing affected that. I also agree that candidates should be given the chance to learn and grow; fortunately, this often does happen, but in this case, a substantial number of opposers were unconvinced that Kww wouldn't repeat actions now some time in the past, and it isn't for us to dismiss those concerns. The probationary adminship is a red herring - I have no problem with it in principle, but introducing it here will just stir up new problems. It appears that Kww has, as The Rambling Man states below, conducted himself impeccably during this RfA, and I hope that this kind of approach will convince those editors with genuine concerns that they should give Kww a chance. Warofdreams talk 21:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this: this is a finely-balanced decision, as can be seen by the current split in Crat opinions. I thank you for your patience - and apologise to the candidate who's having a long wait for a decision, which cannot be comfortable. First, I'll add my voice to the "no probationary admins" camp - there's simply no consensus currently for this and I think it'd need to come from the community, rather than us. I can't be bothered to look, but it's probably a WP:PEREN - it's certainly been discussed to death at WT:RFA on any number of occasions without consensus.

Taking into account everything I've read, I find the level of support toward the lower end of discretionary range. So I'm looking for additional reason to promote. I like TRM's comments about the candidate's behaviour during the affair, and indeed see it as admirable and adminlike, but I sadly can't see that as being reflective of community consensus, which is what I'm here to assess, rather than handing out a deserved barnstar, which would be appropriate.

The opposes are mostly relevant and fairly strong in nature. So, I'm leaning toward no consensus. What tips me over the edge, perhaps controversially, but this is a controversial RfA, is the "3" at the end of the RfA name. I cannot overlook the fact that twice already the community has deemed this candidate not worthy of the tools at that time. That to me speaks of some extra tiny element that a very close call here should not overturn that existing consensus. I hesitate to bring this up, because I can imagine I'll get stick for it, but I'm afraid that's how it is. I therefore opt for "no consensus" with a heavy heart.

The only comfort I can offer is that based on a continuation of the kind of attitude shown by the candidate at this RfA alone, I'd support a future RfA for them and I'd encourage contact with me if/when ready to run again. If a thorough trawl through their recent edits at that time makes me really like what I see, I'd consider nominating. --Dweller (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Serious concerns still exist about behavior prior to RFA KWW 2
  • Very few diffs about problematic behavior since RFA KWW 2
  • Closing % was 68.72%, counting all posted !votes; canvassing occurred but removing max possible canvassed !votes at Wikipedia:BN#E-mail_Canvassing_at_Kww.27s_RfA would change the % to 72.78%, note should be made I ran the CU in that instance
  • However sliced, this is a significant change over KWW 2, which closed at 60.8%, note should be made I closed that RFA
  • KWW obviously has a strong desire to be an admin
    • Other editors have overcome problematic pasts and become admins. The crux of this one seems to be whether or not enough time has passed since KWW 2 and whether KWW has truly reformed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

It sounds like we are leaning toward making a promotion. Can we do a quick poll? Andre (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we're not leaning toward anything. But at least we'll figure out where we're leaning, even if nowhere. Andre (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promote
No consensus

Hrrm, I really would have preferred we simply discuss to see if we can come to a decision we can all stand by rather than polling, but I put my position where it would go. To help reach a decision I'd like more specifics on why those that see consensus feel there is enough support to overcome the substantial opposition. I think I know some of the reasons as stated, but I'd like to hear what people think now that many of us have weighed in. - Taxman Talk 22:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We started as a discussion. Perhaps Andre should get 50 lashes with a limp noodle? :) -- Avi (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know voting is evil, but it has its usefulness after some discussion has taken place to get a sense of whether or not a consensus has formed, or to try to force some of those on the fence to take sides to expedite the process. It looks like we're divided just about evenly, lumping in bibliomaniac with the promotes, and leaving WJB, MBisanz, Rlevse, and Dweller on the fence. I think that, unless all 4 of them break for one side, we are going to have to call this a bureaucrat "no consensus" -- aka don't promote. Andre (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know your intentions were good of course, but the benefits you mention can be had from discussion as well without the reduction of information that a simple yes/no requires. To get a sense of whether or not consensus has formed either take a head count or just make a judgment call about where people seem to stand. More importantly though to try to force some to take sides or to try to move a decision forward we can simply state that we're trying to come to some resolution and anyone on the fence needs to take a side and then determine whether anyone is either willing to change their views or at least accept a conclusion different from their reading of the situation. That does seem to be happening, but my point is a poll isn't necessary for that. - Taxman Talk 00:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that when I signed my name I was under the impression the poll was only serving to clarify where everybody was. I don't think it should be interpreted as anything other than an aid to the discussion, not right now. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in response to Taxman's request for clarification, my rationale is this: 1. There is substantial numerical support within the bureaucrat discretionary range. 2. A number of supports feel that time and behavior has mitigated the problems of the past RFAs, as well as general consensus that Kww is not a vandal, not crazy, and generally seems to know what's going on. 3. The opposes cite a number of diffs that pre-date the last RFA or are otherwise fairly dated. 4. Many opposes explicitly acknowledge he is a good candidate despite these issues, and some say he would make a good admin anyway, or is otherwise a good candidate that they were close to supporting. 5. Canvassing concerns and presentation concerns weigh down the opposers' points. 6. This is the 3rd RFA and represents a significant numerical improvement versus the other 2, which is an accomplishment as some of the opposes merely disliked the number of RFAs (IMO an invalid reason). 7. In conclusion, since it was on the borderline, and a number of mitigating factors weighed for support, I think it's a promote. Andre (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I can pretty much restate Andre's paragraph to conform with my analysis of the discussion:
  1. There is substantial numerical opposition within he discretionary range
  2. A number of oppositions believed that no significant meritoriousi change had occurred since the past RfA
  3. The oppositions cite recent diffs (see this page's talk page)
  4. There are supports which acknowledge issues with interpersonal interaction
  5. Canvassing may have been done on both sides, and did not seem to benefit either side substantially
  6. This is the 3rd RfA, and while it is an improvement over 1&2, that in and of itself is not a reason to pass, but an indication that the candidate has only a bitmore to go to gain community trust.
This, of course, is not my own opinion; I have none about Kevin. This is my read about the opposition to Kevin and why it, in my opinion, is substantial enough for me to fail to see a consensus to grant the admin tools at this time. -- Avi (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that support and oppose basically seem to be two sides of the same coin suggests to me that we should close this as "no consensus" based on the bureaucrat chat here, even though my read of the RFA itself says promote. Andre (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should at least wait until Monday afternoon, to let Dweller, Will, and others chime in as well. As was said, if all other crats believe that there was a consensus to promote here, that would be a crat consensus :) -- Avi (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One question which I find interesting is whether we would be having this discussion at all if the support percentage was 73% instead of 69%. 70 is not a magical cut-off but a rule of thumb, or in other words, this RFA does pass the numerical guidelines for a successful RFA. So in response to your (Avi) point #1, I would say you misunderstood the purpose of finding in favor of substantial numerical support. In other words, to say that a 70% supported RFA has "substantial numerical opposition" is incorrect in the context of RFA numbers. Likewise, your claim that the opposes believed that no significant change had occurred is invalid because it is not critical and thus doesn't find mitigation, and your comments that the diffs are recent is a good counterpoint to my point but isn't a critical read of the RFA. A correct critical read is your point that the supports acknowledge the issues with interpersonal interaction. On the canvassing point I can only profess ignorance since I only know what I have read on these pages. Anyway, I think it's important to find points against the support as well as the oppose, but we should not be finding points in favor of either side, as these do not show a counterweight -- we can not over-weigh points, merely under-weigh them. Andre (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a substantial amount of input. I'm not sure we need to wait that long for Dweller even though it would be nice to have his input. We do have a duty of swiftness if we can, and since we have had substantial participation, I think we can make a decision among those here. - Taxman Talk 00:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I see no problem with closing it now as no consensus. Andre (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking on this. I can honestly see merit to both sides. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my opinion to the chart, based on my comments in the section above. For clarity, I'll be trying to keep an eye on this page and I'm open to being persuaded to change my mind by good argument, but I do think (as others have said) we have a duty to call this sooner, rather than later, so I'm also happy for one of us to close the discussion at any time from, say, a few hours from now. --Dweller (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's close, that's undeniable. What swayed me towards promoting was reading the oppose votes in detail. A sizable minority of them concern themselves with things said up to a year and half ago. I understand that issues such as notability are a core part of Wikipedia, and that the exact implementation of the policies and guidelines is a topic of hot debate, so it's easy for people to get worked up about it when people say (what might seem to them as) stupid things. Bear in mind that this was well over a year and a half ago. I've know for a fact that I've changed a great deal since a year and a half ago, for example. People change, as evidenced by the amount of support the candidate has. Taking that into account, as well as the fact that there were issues with cavnassing to oppose mentioned above, I am inclined to promote this candidate. --Deskana (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DESKANA, EXCELLENT TIMING... considering I was just closing it as no consensus. That being said, your voice doesn't make any more of a consensus, since we're still split down the middle, with bibliomaniac concurring among the promotes for a no consensus. Would you be amenable to closing it as such or do you want to give people some time to respond to your comment, for you to respond, etc., because I think that would be reasonable. Andre (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought we were waiting for Rlevse and Will to make a decision? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy that states we should wait for everyone to decide. Will and Rlevse have both confessed to be torn and unable to really decide, and I don't know if we could really make a claim that an 7-5 bureaucrat "vote" is a mandate for promotion from the community even if they both went with promote. Andre (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point (though I was surprised you said "there's no policy", but there you are), but I'd still prefer waiting, personally. There's no rush, and I'd like to hear what they have to say. But yes, I do not oppose closing as no consensus... it's the only really sensible course of action based on the fact we're split right down the middle. --Deskana (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I certainly wasn't claiming policy, just politeness really. Will and Rlevse have contributed to the debate, only seemed reasonable to allow them some time to contribute to the poll. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd like Will and Rlevse to have a chance to add more to this discussion. Kingturtle (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Kww notes on the talkpage (->) a lack of need to rush, it does indeed seem reasonable to wait for Will and Rlevse, within reason. Prompted by some comments I've seen in various places onwiki, I'll just state that for those who think this is necessarily a "no consensus" because of the current split of opinion, I'd remind you that a strong argument here is certainly capable of swinging some or even all of us into alignment. --Dweller (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do all realise that the RfA has been closed and Kww notified that his RfA did not pass. If we think we're not quite finished, those things will need to be reversed. That seems messy to me. It's unfortunate that WJB and Rlevse did not get the opportunity to provide a definite opinion, but what's done is done and it seems doubtful to me their input would have contributed to a more decisive outcome. This RfA is clearly one for which a group of people have analysed the same evidence and – in equal numbers, according to the poll – come to different and perfectly reasonable conclusions; I don't think anything will sway us to a collective decision. I propose we leave Andre's closure as it is and end this discussion. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, for one, was not aware. I'm responding to this from wikibreak and don't have the RfA or Kww's page watchlisted. When I read the RfA through a few hours ago, it was on hold. My time here's limited and I've probably missed something - is there a consensus somewhere for a definitive decision to have been reached? If so, I apologise for wasting peoples time with pointless comments! --Dweller (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Andre's close. MBisanz talk 13:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in my coming back to this discussion - one of the problems with it continuing into the week is that my time is more limited. I have no great objection to the close, though I think it would have been preferable for Andre to confirm that others were happy for this discussion to be brought to a end. It is not entirely clear to me that everyone had settled on final views. That said, this discussion has inevitably drawn out the process and that puts additional hardship on the candidate.

Whilst I had not come to a final view, a was leaning towards finding a lack of consensus in the end. I found Taxman and Avi's arguments in particular persuasive. Whilst TRM's reasoning was inviting to some extent, I think that although giving the candidate credit for their conduct under pressure during a tense RFA is commendable, I agree with others that this is not something that bureaucrats can do in assessing consensus (though it may be something the community may take into account should Kww choose to submit his candidacy for adminship again in the future). I think this was an RfA very much on the balance.

I would like to thank everyone for responding to my request for further input and for the thoughtful comments you made above. WJBscribe (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_3/Bureaucrat_discussion&oldid=1078958745"