Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Celestianpower

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Celestianpower

[edit]

Final (68/23/7) ended 13:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-nominated. No acceptance required. 13:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Celestianpower (talk · contribs · count) — Right, I guess the first issue that needs to be addressed is the issue of whether we need new bureaucrats (b-crats from now on). My answer is (yes, you guessed it) "yes". Since the recent resignations of Francs2000 (talk · contribs) and Cecropia (talk · contribs), we have a current gaping hole with regards to active b-crats. Now, Essjay (talk · contribs) has gone quite a way to filling this (as well as slightly increased activity by some of the others like Danny (talk · contribs) and Ilyanep (talk · contribs)) but I feel that we cannot (and should not) pile the majority of this responsibility onto him (of the last 20 promotions, 65% have been him). Also, recently, there was an up to 24 hour delay in promotion and while this isn't the end of the world, it certainly isn't desirable. If appointed, I hope to take some of the load from Essjay on this front and would certainly help out with changing usernames.

I suppose I should talk about me then. After a shaky start, I finally got on track and was pretty much hooked from the word go. I tried my hand at stub sorting and voted pretty uninformedly on a few VfDs until I found my feet editing Pokémon-related articles: I discovered the Pokémon Adoption Center (a list of my Pokémon contributions while there can be found on that page). Then came my first RfA which failed with a 66% support margin. In hindsight, I wasn't ready for Adminship at that stage, though I was pretty annoyed when it failed. Then, at 6 months on the project, I was re-nominated by my good friend Redwolf24 and passed with 100% support (60 votes). Since then, I have tried my hand at all of the tools and loved (nearly) every minute. Later (at the turn of 2006), I was elected as the Administrator General of Esperanza, an organisation of Wikipedians dedicated to reducing stress and increasing Wikipedia's sense of community. It currently has 300+ members and we are currently creating a code of conduct to make sure Esperanzians follow Esperanza's goal by example. In terms of Pokémon (my other great Wikipedia passion), I have become co-ordinator of the Pokémon Collaborative Project and got Bulbasaur to featured status (against all odds).

I feel there have a been 4 defining moments of my Wikipedia experience so far, three of which are mentioned above: my second RfA (which saw me promoted to Adminship), my appointment as Admin Gen of Esperanza, my experience with User:Amibidhrohi and the Bulbasaur FAC. One of my darkest moments on Wikipedia was that Bulbasaur FAC. It was (one of the) longest, drawn-out FACs ever, with about 300KB of discussion to 20.5KB of article. The archives can be found here, here and here. During that whole very stressful episode (towards the end), I started to get very uncivil and pretty nasty towards some of the users there. I know this is no excuse but after hearing the same false reasons over and over and then people saying that my Admin Gen-ship of Esperanza had something to do with all of the supports, I got very mad and was on the very brink of leaving altogether. However, this has taught me a few important things:

  1. When stressed, don't post responses.
  2. When stressed about a certain page or discussion, make an edit and then wait half an hour before saving. If you still feel the same way in half an hour, it's unlikely to be as uncivil and nasty as if you save outright.
  3. Criticism of articles != criticism of editors (it took me a while to figure this on out)

As to Amibidhrohi, it can all be found here. From this episode, I learnt that "not feeding the trolls" is very important and if in doubt at all, discuss with other users you trust (an important thing for Bureaucrats as well as Admins to do).

Well, that's my editing history. Now, what am I today? Well, my outlook is much more positive towards the future of Wikipedia. So long as editors can work together well and are always civil, things get done (see the the Torchic FAC for this in action). I feel I'm neutral and fair and if I'm not totally sure of something, I will always ask someone else. For these reasons, I feel I'd make a good b-crat. What do you think? --Celestianpower háblame 13:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Oh, sorry. I forgot the numbers :P. I've been on Wikipedia since 2005-04-17 (364 days ago) and an Admin since 6 months ago. I have 7,500 edits, 3,600 to talk and Wikipedia- related namespaces. --Celestianpower háblame 13:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong Support an awesome user. — Deckiller 13:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support What Deckiller said. Celestianpower is a truly great wikipedian, and we need more b'crats too. Banez 13:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. -JCarriker 13:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, jacoplane 13:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Tangotango 14:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support — Ilyanep (Talk) 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, definitely. --Terence Ong 14:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Suport we need at least 1 more b-crat and he's good enough for the job --Jaranda wat's sup 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support We need more and I'm sure he would do a good job. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 15:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support.  Grue  15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Moe ε 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, brilliant user, need more crats, etc Sceptre (Talk) 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. support He deserves it ILovEPlankton 17:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. We need more BCs, and if he wont make a good one, there are few who will. The Minister of War (Peace) 17:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support One of the most productive, kind and helpful editors I've ever come across. He deserves this. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support One of the few administrators I currently feel comfertable with becoming bureaucrats. Saying we don't need more Bcrats is crazy, we can't leave all RFA's up to 2-3 active RFA BCrats. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support great work so far. --Tone 21:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I have full faith in him as per previous interaction. --M@thwiz2020 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Unequivocal support. There aren't many users I'd trust more with bureaucrat powers. Celestianpower's record is amazing, outstanding, and relatively clean of trouble. He's so ridiculously unlikely to abuse the powers and so impossibly likely to use them well to the betterment of the encyclopedia that I can't think of any decent reason to hold back supporting. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Will make a great BC. DarthVader 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support great user; would make a great 'cratWhere (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, because it's not about the number of b-crats, it's about the quality of b-crats. --ZsinjTalk 00:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, my goodness, absolutely! He will make a truly fantastic bureaucrat, and we need more of those. -- Natalya 01:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support. Has my full confidence. NSLE (T+C) at 01:12 UTC (2006-04-16)
  28. Support. Has my confidence as well. enochlau (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support of course Jedi6-(need help?) 03:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Wholeheartedly. (^'-')^ Covington 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Cabal here.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 04:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support trust to do the job Pete.Hurd 06:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, he will use his CelestianPower® to become a good bureaucrat. JIP | Talk 06:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. He is a very good admin, I have no doubts that he will be a very good bureaucrat too. Rje 07:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support of course. Computerjoe's talk 10:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Just have a discussion with CP and you'll understand why. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 21:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support Celestianpower would make a great bureaucrat. --Adam1213 Talk + 02:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Support - well respected user, natural 'crat. BD2412 T 03:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, as I too believe this person would make a great bureaucrat. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Mindless-esperanzian-zombie-Support-on-his-First-Edit-Day Seriously, he's a great editor, admin, head of Esperanza and just a great guy. Very cool, level-headed and thorough (read the IRC logs from the Esperanza AC meetings if you doubt). Regarding the FAC incident, well, everyone can be brought up to the boiling point. For those who still see a problem here, check out his answers to Pagrashtak's questions. Regarding the "we don't need more bureaucrats" argument, I remember not long ago (definitely after Essjay's promotion) a b'crat closing an RfA or something with an extra summary: "we need more bureaucrats". I'd love to find it but there's a lot of logs to dig through (simply because there's a lot of work for a b-crat to do). Misza13 T C 10:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, should make an excellent b-cat Scott 12:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, we need more wiki-deities... --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - hardly anyone better qualified. --Dangherous 16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - would make a great b'crat - Aksi_great (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. --Rory096(block) 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong supportVery experienced, likeable user. _-M o P-_ 18:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support. Based on my experience of this user, his statement, comments above and below, and a time on IRC when I asked him about how he could close a variety of RfA scenarios- I fully trust Celestianpower to make the right decisions (including abstaining from making a promotion, or obtaining clearer consensus before making it). As I think at least one or two more BC's would be of help rather than of harm to Wikipedia, I place my full support behind this candidate. Petros471 19:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. If all previous interactions with him are indicative of something, is that he can make a fair decision. While I was a bit surprised by the Bulbasaur incident, I cannot ask anyone to be absolutely perfect, nor to be completely devoid of emotion. I saw at least a couple of apologies after that particular episode, so I'm confident that it should be in the past now (although the advice to not take things personally is always good). Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support. A calm, reasonable and dedicated Wikipedian who cares about the project and his fellow editors. Has an excellent grasp of the issues facing Wikipedia and the day-to-day administration thereof. Has made minor mistakes and learned from them, something a great many more people who edit here, myself included, should do more often. All in all, will be a 'crat to be proud of. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Have read the Bulbazor archives and others, think this is someone who can admit to their mistakes and learn from them, a skill more people should have. Mrjeff 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, good admin, will close RfA. Good enough for me. SorryGuy 00:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - good admin, I don't get why people will vote oppose on "no more 'crats are needed" -- Tawker 00:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Joe I 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support We need more experienced crats. Adminship is no big deal, and if the user can be trusted enough to admin, they should be able to be trusted to make admins. Mike (T C) 05:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Brilliant potential admin. HolyRomanEmperor 18:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realise this user is not running for admin, but for bureucrat? jacoplane 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I had some doubts about Celestianpower back when he was running for administrator general of Esperanza. In fact, I didn't even give him my vote of confidence. However, since he won the election, I've seen him make some terrific decisions and come up with some brilliant ideas for improving the quality of the Wikipedia community. Most importantly, I can trust his judgment in determining the consensus (or lack thereof) in RfA discussions. I can also trust him to make the right decisions in unusual or difficult cases, which will arise occasionally. --TantalumTelluride 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Celestianpower comes out on top of the administrator pile in my book, and that's where 'crats should be picked from -Obli (Talk)? 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support So long as he dosen't turn out like Pres. Bush, he seems like a great candidate. The ed17 17:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
  63. Sooper-dooper Support! - Pureblade | Θ 18:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. He's been a great admin and will surely be a good b-crat. Bucketsofg 20:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. — FireFox • T [20:42, 20 April 2006]
  66. Support. Would make a great crat.--Adam (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. User's history convinces me that he can be trusted to act always in accordance with community consensus, which is what we expect of a Bureaucrat. Redux 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. We have enough bureaucrats. We'll have enough after he's promoted. That seems right to me. Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose --W.marsh 14:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I think you're vote is in bad-faith, but could you provide a reason? Moe ε 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not opposed in principal to more b'crats right now, but I don't see a pressing need for them (I prefer good decisions to fast ones), and perhaps more importantly, as the number of b'crats increases, so does the potential for problems. Given how I view the situation, I have a high standard... the burden should be on the candidate, if they're coming to RfB right now.
    I know it might seem rude to oppose someone's RfB because they aren't the absolute most extraordinary Wikipedian ever to edit an article, but the fact is that asking to be promoted right now is an extraordinary thing to ask for, and requires an extraordinary candidate in my opinion. Like John below, I just don't see that here, despite the fact the candidate is obviously a great admin and an asset to WP. Yes, it's a very high standard that I don't meet myself, but unless you see RfB as a popularity contest, it isn't something you should go into right now expecting everyone to vote for you just because they like you. I hope there are no hard feelings here. --W.marsh 18:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    None taken. --Celestianpower háblame 23:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I really hate to do this, but I have rather high standards for bureaucrats. While I certainly don't believe that there can or should be "enough" bureaucrats, I do believe that the bureaucrats we have should be held to the highest possible standard, which means a lot of experience spread out across a number of areas. Don't get me wrong -- you're a great admin and a great guy, and you'd probably do a good job as a bureaucrat, but IMO, "probably" isn't enough for 'crats. I don't demand perfection, but I do like to be able to say with certainty that "Out of 500 promotions, this guy would probably only make one or two mistakes, and he'd fix them up right away." I also like to see candidates with confidence (and if possible) familiarity from the community, because the community must have utmost confidence in those who promote admins. I don't think six months as an admin is enough to say any of these with full confidence, although things might be different for an uber-active admin. I know this is really vague, but this is just how I feel, and I'm going with my gut on this one. Johnleemk | Talk 15:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I like editor, but we do not need more b'crats. Additionally, I have an uneasy about editor's small comments to Cecropia directly before the latter's resignation; I think it would be very unfair to call the exchange "uncivil" or anything -- but the editor and I clearly have different views on b'cratship, as I felt much more sympathy for Cecropia than he. Xoloz 18:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose on the grounds of wanting a little more experience (like the above votes). A few more well-qualified crats wouldn't hurt (especially now that people are doing things about inactive crats now...like User:Optim) so I just want to make it clear that I am not opposing on the grounds of "no need for crats" now.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 18:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you don't mean "wouldn't hurt"? :p Johnleemk | Talk 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose at this time. Is a little low on experience in my view for a bureaucrat, and I'm a little concerned about how this user performs under pressure. While I believe that Celestianpower has learned from the Bulbasaur episode, I'd like to wait a bit and verify that that is the case. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 19:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I want to wait longer before we introduce any more changes to the current bureaucracy. Changes need time to get settled in. --HappyCamper 02:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, with regret. I have nothing against Celestianpower, as I think he is a fine user, but I prefer RfB nominees to have been administrators for at least a year. The Bulbasaur FAC also concerned me quite a bit, and while CP has probably learned from that event, I'd like to wait a bit longer to see how things go. Even if I put that aside, there are still things like this that trouble me as well and, as Spangineer stated, cause me to wonder about how he will act under pressure (even though CP does realize his mistakes and corrects them, they're still enough to give me pause). I will probably support at a later time (preferably after a year of adminship), but not right now. Robert 03:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Some concerns about the level of experience, but I'm opposing primarily on the basis of the Bulbasaur incident. Comment such as the one starting "How preposterous!" here, and this edit summary - make me very concerned about how Celestianpower responds under pressure and how uncivil he can become in such situations. As we have seen in the last few weeks, Bureaucrats really can come in for a lot of pressure and a lot of questioning of their motives and integrity - I am not convinced that this user would respond well. The incident only happened about 6 weeks ago, so now is too soon. TigerShark 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, per issues with the Bulbasaur FAC and high standards for bureaucrats. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Bulbasaur FAC should be very clear about this user's particular brand of civility under legitimate criticism.Temporary account 08:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Legitimate? Meh. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 12:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Oppose per my oft repeated standards: No More Bureaucrats are needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose The bulbsaur fac has repeatedly shown this guy obviously cannot take any kind of criticism and isn't logical enough to counter with reasoning other than finally resorting to personal attacks. For example, this sort of message was left on Tsavage's talk page: "If I wasn't Admin Gen of Esperanza I'd both block you and call you all of the swear words under the Sun." Provided that celestianpower already enjoys the unwavering support of his esperanza group, many of whom supported the bulba article FAC without clear reasoning other than a "yipee!", I find the idea of even granting him the position of a "bureaucrat" rather ridiculous. BlueShirts 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cel did very well under the pressure, sure he got mad, but he stuck it out and apologised. He can take criticism very well, open to suggestions and is very good at converting this into articles. I would like to see how many other editors could go through 3 FACs for a single article and take that kind of criticism! He's helped people to stay calm during FAC, so it's hardly like he hasn't taken anything from the experience. And frankly if I were in his shoes if someone had rejected an FAC because it "should be deleted", I would be in a similar state of anger. And I don't care if this gets posted in my future RfA, because no one likes me anyway. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but responding to constructive criticism about the FAC article by personalizing it and attacking the person criticizing the article is not what I would call "doing well under pressure." How will he respond when the criticism is directed at his actions rather than during a critical review of an article? I think the concerns regarding his behaviour during the Bulbasaur FAC are legitimate. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, Esperanza isn't "his". It has existed before he became Admin Gen and it will survive long after. The organzation doesn't "belong" to any one person. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose A fine user but I don't think he's ready for bureacratship yet, per many of the above comments. --kingboyk 23:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Obvious lack of experiance for b-crat status... a year at admin is a good point, 6 months is way to low. Also there is a lack of maturity exhibited during the bulbasaur FAC which is entirely too recent for my tastes. -Mask 23:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose: my standards for B'crat include one year as admin. Jonathunder 13:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Jaxl. --SR Bryant 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Don't like him. Grace Note 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    RFA and RFB isn't a popularity contest. It's not a matter about whether you like someone or not. I urge the closing crat to consider the merits of this vote. NSLE (T+C) at 10:50 UTC (2006-04-18)
    I can vote to oppose for any reason I choose or no reason at all. Go and bully someone else. If I don't like someone, I do not consider them someone I can trust, so I oppose them. I don't like you either. Count on my opposition if you ever ask for more powers. Grace Note 05:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be at all possible to expand on this a bit? Why don't you like me? --Celestianpower háblame 09:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. I just don't. I don't want to be unpleasant about it. We all have people we don't like. It's just the outcome of our interaction and of your general approach to Wikipedia. I would not have opposed you for an RfA.Grace Note 05:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Liking someone (or not liking as the case may be) is not a reason to vote oppose. Give a concise reason why the user does not meet your expectations. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 03:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)![reply]
    Liking someone or not is as good a reason as any. Go and harass the many support voters who do not give reasons.Grace Note 05:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but I am keeping this vote as one of the strangest (to say the least) votes I have ever seen on a Rf* — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you not keep it? I presume you'll "keep" the many votes that do not even bother to give a reason.Grace Note 05:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose regretfully. By all accounts a good editor and admin, but I am not yet confident that he has the necessary experience. --cj | talk 09:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose As self-nomination rather than recommended initially by peers. Excellent contributions however, definite future candidate. Netkinetic 12:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All bureaucrat noms are self-nominations. This is stated as such on WP:RFA. I also personally find it a bit inappropriate to object to any nomination just because it's a self-nom, whether it's an RfA or RfB. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected. Changing to neutral. Netkinetic 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Only the longest-tenured, wisest Wikipedians should be bureaucrats. TacoDeposit 14:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Firm Oppose. Celestianpower has done some great work, particularly with Esperanza, but I do not believe that he is ready to be a bureaucrat. My interactions with him have been few, but I have not been left with a favorable impression. It seems to me that his civility is prone to breaking down under stress, and that he is a little immature. Additionally, he does not have the experience required to be a bureaucrat. Canderson7 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Wikipedia needs moderates in positions of authority. But his talk page says "I am strongly against Mr. Foliage [apparently a reference to George W. Bush], his reign of terror and in particular The war in Iraq. I believe that he is the biggest threat to World peace in our society today. Other things I hate include The Conservative Party". He comes to Wikipedia with a strong set of biases and preconceived notions. We need more thoughtful, reasoned Bureaucrats here who can deal with people of all stripes without "hating" them and writing them off. Extremists, whether left-wing or right-wing, should not be put in positions of power. Lou franklin 02:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't leave out that he also HATES sports (emphasis Celestianpower). :-) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh - and proud of it :). Do tell me if I put those views into articles though (except for the one I cited above - for those who've forgotten)... --Celestianpower háblame 16:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose, sorry, no. Nice enough guy, but not enough experience, and not able to always keep his temper. Proto||type 12:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The closing Bureaucrat will please notice that the last vote, immediately underneath this comment, was cast after the RfB's deadline. Redux 17:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, right, UTC, not my time, Eastern. Still, the comment is there and the issue is I think important enough, so whomever arbitrates should be bold and consider this additional view. After all, this isn't a vote... Thanks. --Tsavage 17:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose If I hadn't been told about this nomination, I wouldn't have known about it, and that on its own is disturbing, that quite fundamental decisions in WP can be made with potentially interested participants left unaware. My experience with Celestianpower came through the many weeks of the Bulbasaur nominations at Featured Article Candidate. His overall approach did not fill me with confidence in his open-mindedness and ability to see opposing, or even simply different, points of view. He is generally polite, and sounds quite reasonable, until his views are challenged. He now presents a balanced self-evaluation of his Bulbasaur conduct, but this seems based on advice from others, which indicates to me that he understands what to say to mitigate a situation, but not to act in a balanced manner in the first place. His statement: "You have gone to 2 FACs currently and just totally ruined them. If I wasn't Admin Gen of Esperanza I'd both block you and call you all of the swear words under the Sun" displays a personal anger against individuals, and willingness to threaten use extraordinary powers. Combined with additonal comments like: "I cannot see anything stopping this promotion other than your vendetta and Raul is clever enough to see through that. ... It will be promoted" add up to me to a person who builds up support to the point where he believes he is "right", and then is prepared to do anything necessary to see his end "win". This as not a desirable profile for someone seeking to be a neutral arbiter. In case anyone underestimates the insight into Celestianpower's reasoning that Bulbasaur provides, please remember that the FAC was a self-nomination (like this request for bureaucratship), he voluntarily submitted to an editorial review process, and then lost all perspective when things didn't go his way. Finally, I can't help but feel there is a quest for power going on here. He is an Administrator. He is also the elected Administrator General of Esperanza, a group with membership and a code of conduct, and Esperanza came up as a factor in the Bulbasaur voting (voter turnout was at least double the FAC average, and half were Esperanza members by one reviewer's count). Now he volunteers for another position, that carries more extraordinary powers Considering that we are in an environment where "consensus" is often determined by the supermajority of as few as 10 or 20 people, with the decision made by an admin or bureaucrat, supporting concentrations of power is not a good way to ensure that the opinions of individual editors count. (Should I be looking around for a supportive/protective affiliation myself?) Overall, IMO and experience, Celestianpower has not behaved in an entirely unusual manner, but he has demonstrated serious flaws in his perspective and judgement that aren't likely to have "been resolved" in a month. He is therefore not someone I trust in a position of extraordinary responsibility. --Tsavage 15:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oppose If I hadn't been told about this nomination, I wouldn't have known about it, and that on its own is disturbing, that quite fundamental decisions in WP can be made with potentially interested participants left unaware." Um, since when was it anyone's duty to personally notify you about Rfas and Rfbs? The process followed here is no different than any other Rfb, and your insinuation that it was somehow hidden from most users is utter nonsense. If you are such a vital part of the community, then you know where to look for all the candidates, as does everyone else. It is your job to keep tabs on this page, and nothing improper occured here. It sure sounds like you are not assuming good faith in the Rfb process to me. pschemp | talk 15:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not insinuating anything, simply pointing out a fact. I was informed about this on my talk page, else I wouldn't have known about it. And I didn't know that being a "vital part of the community" required knowing the ins and outs of dozens and dozens of administrative procedures and posting locations, or by extension tracking the behavior of any number of users and admins. I thought it primarily had to do with working on the editorial of an encyclopedia, through editing, reviewing and helping to improve editorial guidelines... --Tsavage 16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I think one year on Wikipedia and half a year as admin is not enough to be a bureaucrat. I have had great personal interactions with Celestianpower, but, perhaps wrongly, and with no acual examples, I feel that he is not yet up to the task. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Something up there is keeping me neutral here. I find the user to be amiable, but at the same time, I don't think so (with respect to bureaucratship). I'll perch on the fence. Rob Church (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely not up there? :P. --Celestianpower háblame 19:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have to agree. C.P is definitely one of the best editors here on Wp. He is kind, friendly and knowledgable... However, I think that he might need more work and experience as an admin (maybe a year?). I would definitely support if you waited a while. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Esperanzial Oppose cos no one does Ok, change to support. Just a joke!-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 04:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Perhaps later. Needs more experience IMO. - Mailer Diablo 07:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Needs some more experience. Shyam (T/C) 11:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral While I think Celestianpower has improved since the Bulbasaur FAC, it's too recent for me to vote support, I think. I have somewhat of a problem with the answer to question 9 also. Pagrashtak 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral I greatly admire Celestianpower for his expertise, but because I do not know him that well, I will remain neutral for the time being. Bibliomaniac15 02:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral until question number 6 is answered (the hard one). --American Saga 01:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Banned User:Zephram Stark. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Since Celestianpower mentioned her his editcount, and because I'm dying to try out the tool, here's the statistics:

Statistics for: Celestianpower
- Total: 7636 -
Main: 2737
Talk: 250
User: 771
User talk: 1380
Wikipedia: 1735
Wikipedia talk: 324
Image: 63
MediaWiki: 12
MediaWiki talk: 8
Template: 193
Template talk: 44
Category: 21
Portal: 97
Portal talk: 1

Total edits: 7636
Minor edits: 2230
Edits with edit summary: 7223
Edits with manual edit summary: 7091
Percent minor edits: 29.2% *
Percent edit summary use: 94.59% *
Percent manual edit summary use: 92.86% *

  • - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.

<BEGIN DISCLAIMER> Note that by giving these statistics, I am in no way, shape, or form implying either support or opposition for the candidate. As usual, the warnings about editcountitis must be repeated: these numbers are only that: numbers, and cannot reflect the candidate's ability. I offer them only to present the data for those who wish it to carefully evaluate the candidate. </END DISCLAIMER> Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. The criteria is: less than 74% support is fail; more than 81% support is pass. In between is the bureaucrat's discretion based on comments made and the general will of the community. I feel that I have a reasonable knack of, when entering a discussion, finding where the current consensus is. Obviously, there is the occassional exception but on the whole, these are the communities standards and I respect them. Oh, and, obviously, sock votes would have to be discounted before any number counting takes place.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Always, always, always discuss it with other b-crats via the B-crats noticeboard. If a discussion needs to be private (not that I can think of a case when this would be, but, just in case), email would be the most appropriate medium.
3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. having been an Admin for 6 months, I feel that I have proved that I have these qualities and know when to act and when to discuss. As the Admin gen of Esperanza, I feel that I have demonstrated the ability to communicate well. Everyone is different and should be treated as such.
4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential Admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?
A. Yes, I do. I will never use IRC to discuss such matters and to use the b-crats noticeboard whenever applicable. I don't know where else to put this but I also pledge never to close an RfA in which I have voted. I reserve the right to vote should I be promoted but will never, ever close one of these RfAs.
5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?
A. Yes. I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and a lot of this is reading time (articles and discussions). I have plenty of time to look at and evaluate RfAs (and of course Username change requests). If promoted, this will be my duty and when I commit to something, I always carry it through.
6. How would you resolve the following conflict: A new user edits an article which leads to a revert war with a member of the arbitration committee. You think that the new user's edit improves the article dramatically, is NPOV and entirely verifiable. The member of the arbitration committee says that he’s sure the user is a sockpuppet based on contributions, and indefinitely blocks the new user and his IP. Do you change the article to what you think is the better version, or do you let it stay as punishment for the sockpuppet?
A:


Additional questions from Pagrashtak 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. You said "When stressed, don't post responses." Could you elaborate on this?
A. Yes. This is a very important rule I have enforced upon myself to stop unfortunate instances like the Bulbasaur FAC happen again. I was gettinbg very stressed and you could see this in my responses - they were getting nastier. I'm not proud of it. In an attempt to combat this, I have made the commitment to not post when stressed. That will never happen again as a result.
8. Looking back at the Bulbasaur FAC, do you wish you had done anything differently? If so, what and why?
A. Yes. With hindsight, I should have walked away; left it alone for a while. It would have saved a lot of heartache. If the wuill of the community was to promote, it would have been promoted anyway.
9. Why is your appointment to Administrator General of Esperanza one of your four defining moments?
A. It got me to re-evaluate what I'm doing here and how I'm doing it. It also makes me think more about my responses and interactions with others, making sure they're civil and in the spirit of Esperanzian good will.
10. Suppose an RFA in which you voted is in its tenth day with 98% approval. Attempts have been made to notify all bureaucrats for the past few days, but you appear to be the only active bureaucrat at the moment. What would you do?
A. I might remove my support and close it. It can't stay there forever and if all attempts to contact others had been fruitless, it doen't look like I'd have much alternative.

Additional question from Eternalbeans

1. I get the impression (please correct me if I am wrong), that you regret acting so rudely towards those who opposed the Bulbasaur FAC. However, it also appears to me that you have not appologized to those you were rude to. Can you please explain this inconsistancy? Eternalbeans 23:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. No, you are right, having looked back through the archives, I didn't apologise. I thought I did but obiously I didn't. For the record, "I apologise totally for all the uncivility and bad faith assumptions on my part regarding the Bulbasaur FAC. I shouldn't have let it get to me: they were commenting on the article, not me. Once again, my sincerest apologies." I will go and post this to their user talk pages now(-ish): thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I should have let it get to me... — Uh, I think you did. :P —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - stupid tyops :P. --Celestianpower háblame 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Celestianpower&oldid=1089266537"