Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7 6

Recuse from processing any of this. Jon@talk:~$ 04:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Crat chat

• Friends... it seems we might have a complex here. Most of the crats have commented, and personally, I would not like to see one who as commented close this. It does not seem clear cut. I know we can do this thoughtfully and correctly. Would the other crats weigh in here please? Best, Jon@talk:~$ 22:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If its true most crats have commented then we probably have to go by the numbers. As such he is 10% below what the community decided was a good threshold number (lower if you count griffin as an oppose which his comment pretty much is). Of course we have leeway to make the call, but with everyone commenting that makes it hard. -DJSasso (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I should note that I am happy to accept whatever we decide. :) As he has made great strides. -DJSasso (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed, it should take an uninvolved 'crat to close this. Purely stats-wise, the RFA actually should have closed 13/6 (BarkingFish added a vote post-closure date, for what it's worth), so that's a 68.4% support rate. If we take into account the late vote then it's a 13/7, so a 65% support. Now, subjectively I realise that BG7 is not to everyone's taste, but he has made serious efforts to ensure this Wikipedia has decent content and while abrasive from time-to-time, actually genuinely has the place in his heart and wants it to succeed. I would lean heavily towards support. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the question here is less of a "look how the user contributed" and more of a "is there a consensus to promote, no or no consensus for anything". My opinion is that I don't see a consensus to do anything, thus, no consensus to promote. Using the rubric alone, would you still support, is there a consensus to promote taking into account the support arguments, the oppose arguments, and the comments? Jon@talk:~$ 23:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I buy it, there's no heavy consensus, and in general that means "default to the status quo" so perhaps a nearly 70% support doesn't constitute support. But I'm involved, so enough said for the time being The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I have said much as well. Agree, let us give the other crats time to weigh in. Jon@talk:~$ 23:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• It's not a clear promote, but it's within crat discretion; the closing crat will have to decide. fr33kman 23:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Closure

• If an uninvolved crat does not close in a few hours time, in deference to respecting the candidate, we should work together to close this correctly.
• If we are to start working on a good closure for this RFA, we should agree, or work out, which comments we will discount, and which ones we will consider. I submit:

1. There is some thought to whether or not we should count User:Ydennek's comment, as a technical matter, he is banned, and it would be struck. However, also out of deference to the respect of the candidate, I would consider his comment, since his comments actually contributed to the discussion, and caused more discussion threading. This would seem to be the most uncomplicated way to go about including or excluding User:Ydennek's comment.
2. The late comment by User:BarkingFish I would also consider, being the comment was placed prior to the protection and "hold" status of the discussion.
3. The comment by User:Gordonrox24 appears truly neutral, and I don't think it adds any weight to any of the arguments presented.
4. The comment by User:Griffinofwales is not clearly neutral, it does add weight to the the arguments presented for no promotion, and should be counted as such.

Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 01:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Albeit if an uninvolved crat closes, I believe all the above is moot.  :) Jon@talk:~$ 02:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• I know I'm not nearly as active as I would like but working on a closure now. James (T C) 03:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by BarkingFish

Comment (not a crat) - I realised after posting my vote to the discussion that I had voted post closure, I would appreciate it if my thoughts are taken into consideration, since they are of great concern to me, and if I'd known about the RFA earlier, I'd have voted earlier - but whoever closes the proposal, I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to my vote being discounted as outside the RFA voting timeframe. BarkingFish (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)