Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion: Difference between revisions
recused :) |
general comment |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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.<br/>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). <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 11:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC) |
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.<br/>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). <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 11:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Quite obviously - I'm recused. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 12:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC) |
:Quite obviously - I'm recused. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 12:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
:I won't have time to comment in length about the candidacy proper until about 10 hours. At glance, the temperature of this RfA disappointed me; this is a volunteer offering to help out more. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 12:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:20, 4 August 2015
 | This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page. |
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)