Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkusership/Bsadowski1

Just noticed that I voted after the close date (while it wasn't closed, as a crat, I should have closed it rather than voted). I agree with Barras' close as not successful. If you're looking for someone to nom you in a few months, it looks like you've got 12 people who would be willing, plus me. EhJJ^TALK 19:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an inaccurate interpretation. On this wiki, we require 25 in support, not altogether, plus a % of at least 75. It did not fail for lack of input, but rather lack of consensus. We wait until the arbitrary CU meta guidelines are met if there is not enough participation. RFCUs should never be closed for lack of participation. Majorly talk 22:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify that I agree with "close as not successful", but not necessarily Barras' reason for doing so. You only had 12 editors supporting you after the week, and 8 opposing. Although it is unlikely that a large number of editors will appear and support (although not impossible), that is not relevant. RfCU is about judging community consensus, and right now most of us feel that you are competent but inexperienced. In my opinion, you'd be best off waiting for those who opposed you this time to support you in a few months. EhJJ^TALK 22:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]