Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EggRoll97 2/Bureaucrat chat

Discussion

• This RfA falls into the discretionary range. There has been a steady downward trend from the start, but with no significant drops (other than the usual post-day-1 when the opposition has had time to do their research) and a bit of a levelling-off at the end, I think that it is reasonable for us to discuss the matter further. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• I have the intention to comment, hoping to do so later today. -- Amanda (she/her) 15:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• No consensus to promote It's clear the community values EggRoll97's work in edit filters and other technical areas. However, candidates without breadth — particularly in content and community-facing experience — consistently struggle to gain consensus, as evidenced by the oppose section in this RfA. Even momentarily setting aside the content creation concerns, unresolved doubts remain about EggRoll97’s readiness for the full scope of admin responsibilities, especially regarding demonstrated experience and the ability to navigate complex policy areas. Taken together with the ongoing concerns about content, this is no consensus to promote, through and through. -- Amanda (she/her) 19:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I find no consensus to promote, on two grounds in particular. First, numerically, we are at the very bottom of the discretionary zone, and I would expect to see a compelling reason to look past the raw numbers in order to promote. Second, the oppose comments are well-founded and centered on a lack of content work, which gives a broader picture of the candidate having a lack of overall experience. I find the oppose comments strong enough that I would actually hesitate to promote even if the RfA was at the high end of the discretionary zone. Maxim (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• No consensus to promote - I find that it is extraordinarily hard to dismiss the opposing comments as they cite a consistent rationale that is grounded in policy. Adminship candidates arrive with diverse backgrounds and skills, and while I have in the past and will continue to dismiss opposition based on ever-escalating personal numerical quotas, the opposing commenters make a reasonable case that the candidate is insufficiently involved in several key areas. Among those mentioned are creation and improvement of meaningful content, dispute resolution, and the deletion process. I note that the bureaucrats are not here to place "supervotes" but rather to determine whether there is a consensus in the community. I believe the community has made its answer clear. UninvitedCompany 17:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• I also find no consensus to promote. The closer one is to the top of the discrestionary zone the easier it is for me to find consensus and the closer to the bottom the harder it will be. Given the lack of any factors which would cause me to discount the opposes or otherwise give extra weight to the supports, I land here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• reviewing. I have intent to give a comment this evening. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I also find no consensus to promote. After finishing reading the RfA, it's reasonably clear that there is a large minority of the !voters that have a few merit-worthy issues with the candidate recieving the bit. I can't find anything to persuade me that there is a consensus that the user should become an admin at this time, the oppose !votes have policy based rationales, although it should be noted that quite a few users' responses were on the WP:NOTQUITEYET side. I'd like to clarify that I think the sentiments are from a lot of users that they could be persuaded in a future RfA by taking note of some of the suggestions in the oppose !votes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you Primefac for the ping. I haven’t looked over this RfA yet but will do so now. 28bytes (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, after reviewing the RfA, I come to the same conclusion as the 'crats who have already shared their thoughts above: there is not a consensus to promote. Several RfA participants have expressed gratitude for the candidate's work on edit filters, so I would like to do so as well, and encourage the candidate to build on that experience and branch out into other areas of the project where some additional experience would be helpful. 28bytes (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm back online, I've read much of this already and hope to comment in an hour or so. But given the trend I won't complain if someone closes it first. ϢereSpielChequers 21:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  As others have said, this is at the bottom of the discretionary range. What might justify a success at this level of support would be if the opposes tended to be weak or moral and the supports unambiguous, and the trend line upwards. However this RFA would seem to be the opposite, very few of the opposes are "weak" though several are clear that with a modicum of article work the candidate would be welcome back at RFA in the future, and a larger proportion of the supports are "moral" or "weak". I hope the candidate takes comfort from the many who value their contributions and the clear majority who supported. However, there is a significant minority within the community who expect their admins to have demonstrated an understanding of reliable sourcing, especially for a candidate who might get involved in any sort of admin activity. ϢereSpielChequers 22:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm a little late to the ball on this crat chat, as this review went so quickly and Primefac has already thrown the switch. But I will comment that I'm pleased how well and intelligently this process went. As has been pointed out, consensus means more than the raw numbers, and the reasoned explanations put into the opposes count importantly toward the true meaning of consensus, which this nomination doesn't meet. One thing sticks out though, and that is this being the candidate's second try, I would have expected his numbers to at least be trending up impressively. I hope that when he comes back he will have done more to put more supports and fewer opposes in his corner. Cecropia (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Recusals

Summary

Consensus to promote

No consensus to promote

Barkeep, Maxim, UninvitedCompany, Lee Vilenski, AmandaNP, 28bytes, Cecropia, WereSpielChequers

Recused

Other