Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux

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.

Redux

[edit]

final (35/10/3) ending 03:30 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Self-nominated. No acceptance required. Redux 03:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redux (talk · contribs · count) — I suppose the very first point to address is why am I requesting Bureaucratship, especially when there is some notion that there are sufficient bureaucrats around. That answer is really a two-part:

  1. I disagree with that idea. Our page on Bureaucrats shows that there are only twelve Bureaucrats active. I don't believe that is enough to handle the project's needs. We have stormed passed the milestone of 500,000 accounts, and are steadly marching towards an impressive 1 million accounts. This brings the natural question: So? Bureaucratship has nothing to do with that. Again, I disagree. Our ever-growing project needs Admins to keep it at least somewhat orderly. This makes this page, the RfA, one of the most important forums in the project, and Bureaucrats are essential to keep this page running properly. That brings me to the second part of this.
  2. Bureaucratship involves basically two extra tools: rights setting (the ability to promote other users) and username changing. Why am I interested in that? That's the simplest of all answers: because I want to help. Of those twelve active Bureaucrats, Cecropia (talk · contribs) is doing about 80% of the work around here. I want to help. I used to be very active on this forum, but due to time constraints, I had to cut back on some of my activities and privileged content contributions. I've also seen several cases of users who wanted to change their identities on Wikipedia, but just registered another account and turned their user pages into redirects to their new account's user page. I am always willing to help others in the project, especially less experienced users who demonstrate a disposition to contribute constructively.

As an Admininistrator: I have been one for nearly seven months. During this time, I am very proud to say that my record has been next to spotless. I made one or two small mistakes during my first couple of weeks as an Admin, but since I have become, as I like to think, an exemplary Admin. I have not misused my privileges (I really don't like the word "powers"), I have been proactive to perform whenever I spotted a situation where an Admin would be required, but never acting without a previous attempt to reason with the [often multiple] parties involved (as I have just done) — this shows in my personal template to justify page protection.

Why request Bureaucratship now? I already have experience as an Admin, and it will not get much better than this. Furthermore, as I said before, I had been absent from the RfA forum for a while. I was about to return, but then I thought that this was an ideal moment for presenting this request, since I am completely bias-free in case of promotion — meaning: there can be no claim that I have promoted a user whose RfA I had just supported, or refused a user whose RfA I had opposed. In my view, this neutrality is essential for this kind of request. What I want is to be here and help this so-very-important part of our project run smoothly, that is the basic aim of this request for Bureaucratship.

As a Wikipedia user, I must say that I enjoy engaging in discussions on talk pages (article's, project forums', anything). I see them as essential for the improvement of our project. I'd like to think that I'm always friendly, flexible and open for suggestions. True, I have not been active in forums such as the VfD, RfC and others, but again, time constraints. I am, however, always willing to step in when requested and give it my best. However, I'd like to state, for the record: part of the reason why I'm not more active in certain forums as an Admin is because our other Admins are so efficient! Because I'm usually not on-line for too long, and I have to attend to articles an discussions with which I am already involved, I just keep being beaten to the finish line in some Admin-restricted jobs.

I am particularly proud of the time when I worked directly with Jimbo to address a story that was run by Brazilian magazine VEJA and which all but slandered Wikipedia in Brazil. Unfortunately, the magazine decided to ignore us, but they had to listen (or read) to what Jimbo had to say.

I really, really want to keep this very simple and clear: all I want is to do more for the project. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If promoted, WP:RfA is going into my Watchlist (which I check ever more often). I hope the community will give a willing user the chance to become more useful to the project. I don't need bureaucratship, I want it, but only so long as I can make myself useful by being a Bureaucrat, which I know I can and would be.


Support

  1. Support - I'll throw my support in on this one. They way you explained it was truthful and seemed legit, besides, you've been an admin and Wikipedia is still sitting here fine, so obviousl vandalism isn't an issue to worry about. I'm all for this one. User:VanillaX 9:36 PM, 09 January, 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support One of the better self noms I seen in a while --Jaranda wat's sup 04:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - give him a bigger mop I say! --Admrboltz (T | C) 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. You make two good points: 1. We need more BCs, 2. You'd make a good one. I'm convinced, very well argumented. The Minister of War (Peace) 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Why not. --King of All the Franks 17:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Hail Fellow Well met.--Alhutch 17:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per The Minister of War. bd2412 T 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Redux makes a strong, well-argued case for the need for more bureaucrats, and for his own membership of that elite group. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - the info provided by Redux in the self-nom and in the answers to the questions below are persuasive to me. Johntex\talk 01:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I agree with Redux's argument that we need more 'crats, and we have every reason to trust Redux. --rogerd 04:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Great arguments. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Terence Ong Talk 13:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Redux is true to his word. He says that he wants bureaucratship power to help and I believe him. --Peace Inside 05:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Has always been there when I was in need, answers promptly and very detailed. Very friendly. this is only the natural next step. Good luck to you. Gryffindor 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I am not truly convinced that we are in a dire need for more BCrats at the moment. In fact I'm not sure we need more at all (They are doing a great job). However, like Adminship, this should really be not that big of a deal either. It wouldn't hurt us to have another BCrat, would it? This editor seems to be reliable and very unlikely to abuse the few additional tools given the BCrats. Why not promote? Good Luck. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. We will clearly need more bureaucrats soon. We are notoriously picky about whom we'll approve for that position. Therefore, when an obviously solid candidate comes along, we should put him in, rather than waiting for a desperate need to exist. Chick Bowen 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Redux is clearly a strong candidate for b'ship, and I don't think having lots of inactive bureaucrats is a terribly valid reason to oppose another candidate. Obviously something needs to be done with that situation, but meanwhile we can't bar people from being made into bureaucrats for reasons that have nothing to do with their suitability for the job. - ulayiti (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. He is a very good editor, and a very good administrator. He probably will be a great bureaucrat too. Carioca 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Sarge Baldy 04:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Trustworthy, reliable - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 12:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support --17:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support despite the fact that it doesn't matter much since those who don't want anymore bureaucrats keep all but vetoing noms. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. S-U-P-P-O-R-T, find out what it means to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me Sceptre (Talk) 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you expressing the tone of reasoned discourse that demonstrates how seriously you take an applicant for a position of trust. -- Cecropia 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. His reasons for promotion to bureaucrat privilleges are fair. --Jay (Reply) 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. He would make a great bureaucrat, and more active bureaucrats would be useful. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, as I've not seen anything to make me believe he would not be a good bureaucrat, and I don't buy the "there's enough bureaucrats already" argument to begin with. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Supportper Titoxd. Youngamerican 03:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Great editor, strong responsible user. That's enough for me but in addition WP:RFR (requests for rollback) has a great chance of coming on line soon and we'll need some extra hands for that. If we get as many requests as expected there will be a backlog, there will be ongoing revocations and incoming requests as well. There will be plenty of work. Rx StrangeLove 04:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Calwatch 08:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Wanting to help is pretty good, as reasons go, and I don't see why we should oppose you because of the actions (or in this case, inactions) of others. Best of luck, assuming you make it. -Colin Kimbrell 14:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support wants to rule the world, supporting is good--Piedras grandes 16:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support based on his excellent arguments. --G Rutter 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support as above Trampled 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support His arguments certainly make sense to me NoIdeaNick 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose until long inactive users are demoted from Bureaucrat to Sysop. Here is the list [1]. You are right about 1/2 the BCrats being inactive. Nichalps and Linuxbreak do renames and Cecropia does most RfA stuff. It could go faster and you would make a good BCrat. However, a I want to replace inactive BCrats, not just make more. This is due to security issues. If you contact User:Angela or User:Jimbo Whales or other stewards and they plan on demoting inactive BCrats (like user:Optim), then I will change to Support.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure that security issues would arise from the inclusion of a new Bureaucrat. Perhaps there could be issues if we were facing a "boom" of Bureaucrats. But we are nowhere near that. What I can say for my part is that I am very conscientious about all my actions on Wikipeida, and even more so when it comes to restricted abilities, which the community has (or would have) entrusted to me. And if I might add, it would appear unjustified, for lack of a better term (that I can think of right now), to prevent a user who is willing to contribute from doing so because others have left the project but still retain their status as Bureaucrats, especially when Bureaucrat activities are severely concentrated on far too few users. As I said, I believe that the project needs more Bureaucrats at the time, also because the inactive Bureaucrats need to be replaced, but it would seem to do little to no good to the project that we should wait, perhaps indefinitely, for the demotion of inactive Bureaucrats before we can suply the need for active ones. Regards, Redux 01:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One BCrat likely will not hurt much. But I am not going to fall into the "just one more cookie" trap. You seem like a good candidate, so I dropped the ole Stewards a note. Anyway, how active are you in RfA?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your confidence in my capacity. There was no trap. I was referring to context. Consider how slow the process of selecting new Bureaucrats is. You mentioned replacing Bureaucrats. Imagine how long it would take us to select about 10 (or more) new Bureaucrats to replace the inactive ones. The Bureaucrat-specific activities are severely concentrated on a very small number of users — even though there are twelve Bureaucrats listed as active, only four are "really active" on a regular basis. This must be combined with the fact that we usually don't get too many RfBs. Thus, given that we are not facing any possibilities of a "sudden", dramatic increase in the number of Bureaucrats, and that the system is unbalanced right now, given those circumstances, there appeared (to me, naturally) to be no reasons for concerns about making the system unstable by promoting a new Bureaucrat. In effect, we would be already working towards replenishing our Bureaucrats board.
          About your question about my RfA activity, I would request that you review my "essay", namely the final part of point n.2 at the beginning and the section I called "Why request Bureaucratship now?". At your disposal for any further clarifications. Redux 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well you have voted quite a bit and the past,[2]. I can see what you mean about voting bais too. I will wait for the Steward's reply and then decide what to do, possibly supporting regardless. I've got to get to bed now though, its late here :).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would be honored to have your support. I have never allowed any bias to influence my voting, the RfAs are too important for that. But as a candidate for Bureaucratship, I feel that there cannot be any shadow of a doubt about my neutrality. Hence my refraining from returning to vote right before or during my RfB (because, if promoted, I might be the one to close some of the RfAs that were up at the same time as my RfB). Redux 05:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The BCrats managed to run things before. And no we have Francs2000(who I voted for) to help. With that said, I don't see the need for more BCrats. If we can get a demotion policy up, and demote the inactive one, I would support much more easily, even if the BCrats can manage without.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 16:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the fact that your blatantly disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point (see:WP:POINT) I think it's wrong and fairly immature of you to hold your vote hostage just because you don't agree with the fact that not all the bureaucrats are as active as you want them to be. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 09:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How in the name of Jimbo is that even remotely a WP:POINT violation, Mr. Kiefer? Xoloz 21:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We dont NEED anymore, I just voted for one that was promoted. If there were not so many inactive ones I might support, but since they are doing a good job as is, I can not support. Also, his RfA activety level is still a bit shaky. I dont see a WP:POINT violation, only a rude, condesending comment that was not needed.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - It is my inclination at this time that we do not need more bureaucrats. Over the past few months, the community has promoted a handful of them already, and I would like to see these users process more RfAs first before promoting any more. I want to get a better sense of the balance and impact of adding new bureaucrats to the existing group. From the bureaucrat related logs, there is relatively little activity from these newly promoted bureaucrats, and there are insufficient grounds for me to conclude that the RfA process is non-functional in the sense that it currently needs more bureaucrats to oversee it. Finally, the RfA process is supposed to be something which is processed on a reasonably uniform basis by bureaucrats and the addition of extra members to that group unnecessarily complicates this when it is not needed. Granted, if the community is thoroughly comfortable with promoting more users to bureaucratships knowing that it would not be unreasonable to say at the moment that they may only promote a small fraction of RfA candidates, then I would add that indeed, perhaps RfBs are "no big deal" too, and consequently modify this vote. --HappyCamper 16:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Although this nomination is well-crafted, I am not convinced more b'crats are necessary. Before I support the granting of the power, I must be persuaded the user is truly superb; this nom. comes close to doing that, but it doesn't quite surmount my "better-safe-than-sorry" personal policy. Xoloz 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To address these last votes, I would like to state: first (pertaining to HappyCamper's vote), that I did not say that the RfA process was non-functional right now. It is functioning, but mainly thanks to Cecropia. I said that this situation, backed by the reality of Bureaucrat activity (1/2 the Bureaucrats are inactive in general, and of the other half, only a third perform Bureaucrat functions with some degree of regularity), poses a real problem, as it concentrates activities severely on too few users. As a further exercise, we might consider that, if all the users with Bureaucrat status were performing as such, we would have somewhere around 18 to 20 Bureaucrats (that's disconsidering the latest promotions, that might not have happened). That would indicate a number that the community would have deemed as "sufficient", "good" or maybe "ideal" (let's not get too much into semantics). For all practical purposes, however, we only have twelve users active that have Bureaucrat status, and only four performing as such. On the "in-and-out" front (pardon the expression, but I cound't think of something better at the time), we have had about twelve Bureaucrats leave the project, and, in recent times, only two users (a sixth) have been promoted to fill their shoes.
      About Xoloz's post: perhaps you could tell me where do you believe I fell short of meeting your standards for this job. Perhaps I might be able to provide you with further reassurance of my commitment to doing this job not just well, but with excelency. Regards, Redux 18:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose now - we do not need more bureaucrats. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would request that you review my rationale on why we do need more Bureaucrats at the time. "More" is actually a tricky term, since half of the existing Bureaucrats are all but gone and two thirds of the remaining half do not perform as Bureaucrats with a minimum regularity. The system is strained right now. Regards, Redux 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am more than well aware of the current bureaucrat status (see Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats and User talk:Angela). ONE bureaucrat is enough to administer to the ammount of admin requests. Look up - there are 15 current nominations, plus the inevitable early (pile on) finishes, we'll say accross seven days, that's 3 a day. There are five or six very active bureaucrats. That's more than enough. Even if we had 70 nominations up, that's still an easy 2 a day per b'cat. Bureaucratship is nothing more than a status symbol and popularity contest, which is borne out by the lack of active b'cats, period. I will continue to strongly oppose all bureaucrat nominations regardless of who is up. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to hear that that's how you feel. I respect your opinion, but I cannot agree with it. Concentrating tasks in one user's hands is not the wiki way, and it poses very real problems, even if (yet) potentially. There may be six users who are Bureaucrats that are very active, but not all six are very active as Bureaucrats. With the constantly growing number of users/accounts, which is bound to reflect on RfA, with an also ever-growing traffic (we often have more than 20 requests up simultaneously, and that's just for now, in six months time, who knows?), the project simply has a need for more people to be involved. Regards, Redux 15:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Unsure on the matter of whether we need more bureaucrats or not, but in any case I'd prefer a candidate who hasn't "been absent from the RfA forum for a while". Carbonite | Talk 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree with Carbonite that giving someone the ability to create new administrators, when they haven't been observing the process by which this happens, doesn't seem like a good idea. Assessing nominations depends on having a good "sense of the room", which is impossible to have if you haven't even been in the room. --Michael Snow 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as per Jeffrey O. Gustafson. I too am not convinced we need more. enochlau (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: nothing personal, but I do think there are enough right now. Jonathunder 05:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose--Masssiveego 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. bd2412 T 03:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted without comment. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. While I think is an excellent self-nomination, I still am not convinced that there is a serious backlog of bureaucrat duties that need to be taken care of by new bureaucrats. I see nothing disorderly about how RFAs have been closed lately. In my view, there's no point to bringing in new bureaucrats with a new learning curve when the existing ones are having no trouble doing their duties. —Cleared as filed. 17:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the compliment. But please notice that what I said is that the problems I point out are potential, but as such, very real. Activities are severy concentrated on very few users — or just one, if you consider that Cecropia is doing 80% of the work on RfA. Regards, Redux 17:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Inclining towards opposition. Your 'disagreements' with the nigh-inevitable reasons for opposition don't really rise to the level of arguments: why is it somehow bad that Cecropia is doing 80% of the promotion? That in itself hardly indicates a massive workload. What evidence is there that there any insufficiency? Service level? Quality of existing promotion decisions? Desirability of multiple people making the decisions semi-independently? I also didn't find your answers to the standard questions especially enlightening (and on a very small point, the A1 seems to be slightly self-contradictory, though I assume that's just phraseology: do you mean 80%+ assures promotion, as the next clause asserts that it's not necessary). I remain open to be convinced you'd be so indispensible for the job as to demand "creating a vacancy", though. Alai 03:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not "bad" that Cecropia is doing the bulk of the work here. He's doing a fine job. But the fact that he is next to alone in it indicates room for more labor force. Cecropia went on a Wikibreak early in last year's second semester. Fortunately for us, UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) took over for a while. We might not always be that lucky. Relying this much on just one user, even if he is great, poses a potential problem. I am willing to share the work. About the answer to question 1: 80% ensures promotion. If this percentage is reached, promotion is mandatory (unless some sort of manipulation of the voting is detected). In case of a consensus anywhere below 80%, but equal to or above 75%, the system allows discretion to the Bureaucrat(s), to analize the circumstances of the RfA and verify if the candidate is in fact eligible for Adminship. It is a "critical consensus for promotion", and it is allowed because we recognize that RfAs don't always run smoothly. In effect, however, I would discourage emphatically that this discretion be exercised by only one Bureaucrat. In fact, the closer to 75% the consensus is, and the more contentional a RfA is, the more important it is that Bureaucrats "convene" to debate the circumstances of the RfA in order to decide on whether or not to promote. I would favor that, especially in my early days in the job. Redux 04:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NSLE (T+C) 08:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I ask why you have preferred to be neutral? If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. Regards, Redux 10:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I chose to be neutral because I agree that we've enough bureaucrats. However, you have put forth a good argument why you should be one, and I do not feel it would be fair to oppose. NSLE (T+C) 06:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per NSLE, not at this time. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I feel the need to point out two things:
  1. I did a lot of "talking" in my "opening essay". Some of the issues from the standard questions are developed there. I did it because I they were connected to other points I wanted to make, and I felt that it would be better to keep it together, rather than braking up my line of thought or overextending my answers to the questions by talking about off-topic things there.
  2. About the current Bureaucrats: As I said, there are twelve active Bureaucrats. Considering that the most important Bureaucrat function is the ability to promote other users, we must consider: of those twelve, only about four perform this task with some regularity, in the following ratio (approximately, of course): Cecropia does about 80% of the work; the other 20% are shared by UninvitedCompany, Linuxbreak and, more recently, Nichalp. So, there's really four "really active" Bureaucrats, and one of them is doing most of the work. This is a critical level of activity for Bureaucrats. We have not had major problems thus far, but I believe that's because we've been lucky. Redux 04:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your analysis seems not to consider the possibility -- nay, probability -- that this is somewhat inherent to the job, as there's only so much for them to do. The activity is certainly a vital one, but the "level of activity" is decidedly far from "critical": indeed, a better characterisation for me would be that there's so much "slack", that most of the existing B's, many of whom are highly active as admins and/or editors, feel "not required to perform" admin-promotion tasks. Short of a situation where all 12 are regularly rushing to be the first to accomplish it, I don't see how this could reasonably be expected to be otherwise. One might indeed argue that a single person performing the majority at any given time is likely to lead to consistency, and to avoidance of any appearance of "most liberally promoting 'crat takes effect".
    • Far from "being lucky", it seems to me to require a large conspiracy of adverse factors for even as slight an alleged difficulty as "the Thanksgiving Crisis", which would require considerable dramatisation to be construed as even a minor problem. "We need more" just does not fly for me, even a smidgen. Alai 05:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Slack? Maybe that was true once, but not anymore. In the "old days", there used to be only a handful of RfAs up at the same time. Now the list hardly ever shortens considerably. At the time of this post, there are 19 simultaneous RfAs (and plus this RfB, which makes it 20 requests of some sort), and there's every chance that a new one, or more, might be put up today. And some of the RfAs get really, really long, with a lot of material to be read by the time of closing. I can't assume that all other Bureaucrats are simply "kicking back" because they think Cecropia "has got it covered". A much safer assumption would be that they have a lot on their hands, both elsewhere in the project and in real life. Besides, nowhere in the project, except perhaps for the functions reserved to Jimbo, do we encourage concentration of tasks in one user's hand. That's not how Wikipedia should work, by any measure.
        My point with this RfB is that I can be of use, not all over the project (by being a Bureaucrat, that is), but right here, on RfA. More importantly, I'm willing to. Redux 11:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, slack. 20 requests spanning a week' of consideration time, please note. So, roughly speaking, some small constant * 3 edits per day to process them. Between 12 people, none of whom have reported an inability to contribute. You must assume as you think best, but I'm far from convinced. Alai 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you trying to mess me up, Redux? Once I "push the button" 500 times, I get a T-shirt ("I pushed the button 500 times for Wikipedia Admins and all I got was this stupid T-shirt"), a year's supply of Orville Reddenbacher popcorn, and a one-night all-expenses paid dream vacation in Philadelphia. -- Cecropia 05:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say, I really like popcorn. But you shouldn't worry, since you are my role model Bureaucrat, if promoted, I'm going to be asking you for so much advice you'll get extra points for that! But seriously, I find it tremendously unfair to you that you should have to bear practically all the responsibility for the timely closing of RfAs. Redux 11:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new question for you: User:Brion VIBBER told me not long ago [3] that Bureaucrats can change attribution for an edit. There's an enormous backlog on that page, and no one has touched it in months - will you look into this? bd2412 T 20:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need a developer for that. You have to have database access. -- Cecropia 22:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was writing my asnwer to BD2412 and got an edit coflict due to Cecropia's post. I was finding this strange, since I had not heard of Bureaucrats being able to change attribution for edits. Plus, as I was pointing out, the very project page states Instructions for developers; and there's the fact that our page states that changing attribution for edits is one of the two administrative tasks carried out by Developers (along with sock puppet checks). I would have been more than willing to help out on that front, though, if a Bureaucrat status were to give me that ability. Too bad. Redux 22:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cecropia, I asked because Brion Vibber (a developer) pointed me to the bureaucrats. Being neither a 'crat nor a developer myself, I was thus confused as to whether the info on that page was correct. I have heard different things from different folks, and want to nail it down. bd2412 T 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this has just been brought up to oppose, I will clarify this: when I say that I have "been absent for a while", this means that I have not voted, but I am always quite aware of what is going on here. Voting, however, requires that a user spends time to analyze the candidate's credentials, the arguments brought up by other voting users both for and against the candidate, and so on. I had not had this time available, or else I would have had to suspend contributing content, which I'd never do. Because I do not vote lightly, I have not voted for a while. That's what I meant by "absent", and that's why being "absent" meant that I enjoyed a much needed (in my view) neutrality to request Bureaucratship now. Redux 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the exchange between myself and Cleared as filed., concerning his vote. It had been originally posted underneath the vote. With the other user's permission, I have moved it here. Redux 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that concern, but it's not as if it's hard to promote new bureaucrats if the problems finally surface — after all, it only takes 7 days. I'd wholeheartedly support your nomination in that case. —Cleared as filed. 17:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I urge you to consider two points: 1) If the problem actually surfaces, this would mean that it's already falling apart. I don't suppose it would be acceptable that the timely closing of RfAs could be on the line because we waited until the floor actually collapsed under our feet. 2) Even though things are not falling apart right now, the severe concentration of tasks on too few users is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. We don't encourage it anywhere in the project (this is not to say that there should be hundreds of Bureaucrats, but only four people attending to the tasks regularly is also an extreme). And it produces the occasional slip: check out this RfA. Notice that several votes were cast after the closing time (one support vote was cast eight hours past). They were not considered, but the RfA was closed with much delay. That's because the very few Bureaucrats acting here also have their real lives to attend to. And that's why it is important to share tasks. Regards, Redux 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose my issue here is that I don't find RFA closure delays of a couple of days to be a problem. Sure, weeks would be unacceptable, but we'll know we're getting to that point in plenty of time to promote new bureaucrats. As far as this causing an issue with votes after the closing time, I personally don't think that votes after the closing time should be dismissed. We're looking for consensus here, and there's no reason that anyone's voice should be discounted at any time before a closing bureaucrat makes up his/her mind. I think the seven days should be a minimum, not a maximum. —Cleared as filed. 19:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But you are talking about reviewing the procedure. That's fine, but it's a completely different issue. I was giving you an example of how there is room, and need, for more Bureaucrats, given the overconcentration of tasks on too few users (which is also not what Wikipedia stands for), as well as the fact that the project is steadly growing, and RfA along with it, with more and more work to be taken care of. Missing the timely closing of RfAs is an example of what can happen if we rely on too few people (the example I gave was concerning many hours, not a couple of minutes), which is what we are doing (or rather, we are relying 80% on Cecropia). Whether or not this (the timely closing of RfAs) should be considered a problem, or whether those votes should have counted, that's a matter of procedure. Bureaucrats do not determine procedure. They follow it. Maybe you could reconsider? Regards, Redux 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I realize I'm talking about a procedure that has nothing to do with your nomination, but since I don't think missing the timely closure of RFAs is a problem, I also don't think we need to appoint more bureaucrats to take care of this thing that I don't think is a problem. I think that given the limited duties of bureaucrats, there is no overconcentration. I also am not sure what you're referring to when you mention "what Wikipedia stands for," since I don't think more bureaucrats are the solution to making us a better encyclopedia. I hope I've made it clear that my opposition is nothing against you personally, and if there comes a time when we need more bureaucrats, I think you'd make an excellent addition to that staff. —Cleared as filed. 20:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not taking it personally, naturally. This is a valid exchange of points of view. To clarify: "what Wikipedia stands for" is the sharing of tasks, rather then concentrating them. It is concentrated because, as I have said, there's only one user doing 80% of the work at RfA, and I want to share the work, and thus help. Plus the fact that 50% of the existing Bureaucrats are all but gone, and only 1/3 of the remaining half are trully active as Bureaucrats (and still Cecropia does 80% of the work). Bureaucrat activity is limited in terms of variety (there are just two jobs exclusive to Bureaucrats), but the work load is what is steadly increasing, as a natural result of the project's increase, which is considerable. And plus, as you may already be aware, there's a very serious proposal for the creation of a third forum, for non-Admins to request rollback privileges (here), and the job of closing those would fall to Bureaucrats as well, with yet another (and maybe substantial) increase in the work load of Bureaucrats (even Jimbo seems to be onboard with the creation of this new forum). Don't you think we could stand to have more than just four people working regularly as Bureaucrats? And wouldn't it be safer for the RfA forum not to have one user alone do 80% of the work? That's what I'm volunteering to do. Regards, Redux 21:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          I think Wikipedia should share the tasks when it comes to writing, editing, and otherwise building the encyclopedia, which is our reason for being. I see RFA, on the other hand, as a necessary evil — it doesn't directly create any encyclopedic content and it forces wikipedians to stand in judgment of each other, but we do need a system to create the administrators that we need to keep up with the busy-work that comes with allowing anyone to edit. If we could get that necessary evil handled with an absolute minimum number of bureaucrats, I think that would be ideal. As far as the rollback privileges proposal goes, I don't think we need to create bureaucrats in anticipation of future need — if the proposal succeeds and our current bureaucrats are swamped, then that would be a good reason in my mind to expand the bureaucrat staff. —Cleared as filed. 21:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, it's as I said: it's not like we should have hundreds of Bureaucrats (or several tens of them), but look at the numbers (in detail in my previous post): only four people who are regularly active as Bureaucrats, and only one doing 80% of the RfA work, is just too small a number. If I were promoted, we'd still be working with a very low number of active (in the sense of performing the tasks regularly) Bureaucrats. Sure we should have only the necessary, but "the necessary" should be a number that doesn't make the forum too dependent on the availability, or the dedication of just one or two users. That's a liability, I believe. Regards, Redux 21:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            Since everything seems to be running just fine, four active bureaucrats are enough, in my view, to meet current demand. If demand for bureaucrat services increases and "inactive" bureaucrats don't step up to meet the increased demand, that would be the time that I think we should appoint new bureaucrats. With only 7 days to create a bureaucrat, we don't have to hurry. —Cleared as filed. 21:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Notice that demand has already been increasing, and Cecropia is still the only champion of RfA. And are you really perfectly fine with having one single user handle 80% of the RfA traffic? If you believe that I am a good candidate, how could my promotion do anything other than help the proper functioning of the forum? I would say that the forum is functioning well despite the conjuncture, but that doesn't make it ideal. This is like walking a tightrope without a safety net, to use an analogy. I'm saying that we should have a safety net. Does that convinces you? Regards, Redux 22:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              I really am perfectly fine with Cecropia handling 80% of the RFA traffic. Like I said, to me, having the absolute minimum number is ideal because bureaucrats and RFA are necessary evils. I disagree with the tightrope analogy; if you walk a tightrope without a safety net and you fall, you die. If demand for bureaucrats' services increases and an RFA backlog begins to appear... we nominate some qualified individuals such as yourself and the backlog vanishes. Wikipedia doesn't die, and no permanent harm done (if any harm at all). I do believe that you would be a good candidate if we needed more bureaucrats; however, since I don't think that we do, having an inexperienced bureaucrat doing what experienced bureaucrats could be handling isn't beneficial to the forum. —Cleared as filed. 22:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              Well, I see that there will be no changing your mind. I didn't mean exactly that with the analogy though: I meant that walking a tightrope without a safety net is to be taking an unnecessary risk (besides walking the rope to begin with, naturally), which is what I believe that we are doing by keeping a critical number of active Bureaucrats. Regards, Redux 22:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              On the contrary, it's walking along a rather broad street with about twenty safety nets. That one person is performing 80% of the promotions simply illustrates it's something short of a one person job. There are about four people fairly active in doing it, any of whom would be able to keep up by themselves, another half dozen somewhat active as bureaucrats, and another 10 who are active as editors, who already have the privileges and of whom there is no reason to suppose would be incapable or unwilling to perform them if required. The "we need more" argument relies on either all of these people being unavailable, or of having a very high "service level requirement" (people must be promoted within some short time of being consensus-approved). I feel people would serve themselves better if they concentrated on the "why [person X]'d be great for the job" (overmanned as it is) aspect, much as this might be a struggle for people's modesty for self-noms. Alai 19:21, 17 January 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. I have. I would not dare requesting Bureaucratship without having full knowledge of the criteria. A consensus of at least 80% is required for promotion. A consensus between 75% and 80% may result in promotion, depending on the circumstances of the RfA, such as bad faith, or malicious votes, as well as the influence that certain votes, cast by users who enjoy a certain prestige in the community, can have on the general outcome of the RfA. Consulting with other Bureaucrats, especially while I am still new to the job, is of utmost importance, in my view. Promoting a user to Adminship is a big deal, not just for the user concerned, but for the community in general.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. A combination of factors: my best judgment and conferring with other Bureaucrats. If the decision falls to me, I will make it. I will take full responsibility for my decision and its consequences. I have never hidden anything on Wikipedia, and I shall not start with the things that matter the most.
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. Because I expect and accept nothing less of myself. People who have been in contact with me in the project know this. The very few users that I have wronged in the project, for any reason, have received a full-hearted apology. And again, nothing of a sort has happened since I became an Admininstrator.
4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on IRC or 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. Absolutely. I don't use IRC or any other means of communication outside of Wikipedia to discuss Wikipedia-related issues. Transparency is not negotiable. It is a requirement. As a corollary to this, I can say this: even though I am able to communicate in several languages, I do not post in any language other than English on the English-language Wikipedia. On occasions, I have been contacted in French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian on this Wikipedia, and I have responded to those all in English. I have refused to discuss how to best handle a troublemaker via e-mail, preferring to address the issue on Wikipedia talk pages. There is no compromising transparency. There will never be.
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. That is the very soul of my request for Bureaucratship. I will honor this compromise!
6. I'm just curious, but according to Interiot's Tool, it took you over six months since you began regularly editing to edit a project (Wikipedia:) namespace, and in the past four months your project namespace has also been relatively low. Could you explain this? (I know that most users don't edit Wikipedia: much, but I just wish to hear your response to this.) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I apologize for the delay in answering your question. Well, there's a combination of factors involved in this. First, it must be noted that my "pace of contributing", if we can call it that, was never particularly high (there have been only a few periods when I was able to pick up the pace for a while). When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, I was doing it more like a hobby. But then I realized that this project was something really especial, and a priceless asset in a world where we can't even find out what the wheather is going to be like without providing a credit card number first. So I started contributing as a matter of principle. This transition did not happen as fast for me as it does for some other dedicated users that we have here, mainly due to time constraints. But once it happened, I understood that I wanted, and I should, do more for the project than just contribute to the article namespace. That didn't take that long to happen though, but I was never one to rush into something I don't understand fully first. As best I can remember, I was always bold in editing articles, but I took my time before getting involved with the other aspects of the project. Still, we are not talking about as long a time as six months, no where near that in fact. That it had taken that long for me to actually edit a project namespace, I did not even know. I do remember that by the time I had been here for six months I was already a big enthusiast of the project, so it might have been more of a coincidence that it didn't take five, or four months instead of six. And it could have just as easily been even less. Besides, content contribution has always been high on my list of priorities (and that, in my view, includes discussions on talk pages and user talk pages, which, as I said, I view as an essential part of the process of building this encyclopedia), so this is probably related to the reason why it might have taken me a little longer to get around to contributing in the project namespace.
And this is also the reason why my level of contribution on that front has dropped in the last few months: as I said in my statement, time constraints forced me to cut back on some of my activities, and I privileged content contributions (and discussions associated). Now I'm hoping to pick up on all of those again. I am, however, proud that whatever "real life issues" I have had over these almost two years that I have been with the project, I have never taken extended leaves of absence, never leaving it — I took my first wikibreak only in mid 2005, and even that was only because I went to Yosemite, and shockingly, they didn't have internet access in the park. Have I addressed everything? Regards, Redux 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. By the way, I left out a word in my question above (I know that most new users...), but I think you got the gist of the question. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. What is your take on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges? If adopted policy, is this something you would participate in? Do you think it necessary for BCrats to be involved at all? Are BCrats too busy as it is to take this on as well?
Philosophically, I have no reasons to oppose the bestowing of rollback privileges onto users who have already demonstrated their commitment to the community. In the talk page, it was suggested that maybe a procedure would not be necessary, and rollback could be an automatic privilege of all registered users after a certain number of edits. With that I cannot agree. Although rollback action can be easily reverted, unchecked access to this tool would make a vandal's life a lot easier, and that's never good. A willing vandal would not have too much difficulty working around the minimum number of edits. The points raised by Talrias over there are also of great pertinence, especially the part about the risk of compromising edit summaries. If a procedure similar to the RfA is implemented, however, there's the practical problem of making it almost as tough for a user to get as Adminship — although the general requirements would not be as demanding, and a lower percentage for required consensus could be set.
As for the Bureaucrats' part in this, yes they should be involved. Rights setting is the task reserved to Bureaucrats, so I cannot see how it would not be them the ones responsible for carrying out promotions. It's an increase in the work load, but there's no reason to believe that the Bureaucrat community would not be able to adjust. The only technical catch in the proposal is that, currently, Bureaucrats can only increase a user's access level. Demotions are a privilege reserved to Developers. This means that the proposal also involves an increase in the privileges reserved to Bureaucrats (even if related only to rollback rights), which is all the more reason for them to be involved.
Finally, for my part in this. As a user, I would be willing to participate there and vote. If I were to be promoted and become a Bureaucrat, then my pledge to be of service at the RfA forum would be extended to the new forum with the same diligence, provided that this proposal had become policy, of course. Redux 03:42, 13 January 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/Redux&oldid=1089037609"