Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3

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

Redux[edit]

Final (79/1/2) ended 14:48, 12 June, 2006 (UTC)

Self-nominated. No acceptance required. Redux 05:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redux (talk · contribs) — The first statement is that this is not my first RfB. My original RfB did not pass, with a consensus of roughly 80%. In my second RfB, I decided to withdraw when it was a little over half way through, with consensus at roughly 60%. I will expand on that in the next paragraph.

Applying again and RfA record I decided to apply yet again because I remain confident that I can do a good job as a Bureaucrat. And why now? The decision had less to do with the number of months elapsed per se (it’s been roughly 2 months) and more to do with the fact that the opposition I had received was very specific in reason (see next paragraph), and I believe that I have addressed it. I thought that it was ok to reapply now because I believe that I have fixed the one central aspect of my candidature that was raising opposition, by reviewing my decision to remain completely neutral, in all instances, and resuming a normal participation in RfA (meaning: posting in RfA talk and RfAs in general, since I have never stopped visiting RfA — see next paragraph), as I have been doing over these last two months. I believe that I’ve done everything that I could to meet what the community has demonstrated that it expects of me as a candidate for Bureaucratship. But I will expand on my previous course of action and on my experience in RfA.

In my last RfB, almost all the opposition was based on my not posting in RfA, so I’ll explain that first: for a period of time, from when I started considering applying for Bureaucratship until after my second RfB (to be explained), I made a conscious decision to remain completely neutral on all topics, which I thought would be becoming of the position I was seeking. I believed that it would be positive for a candidate to be already meeting the standard to which he was to live up if promoted (complete neutrality). Many users thought that this was not the ideal choice, and opposed me on those grounds. This takes me to the reason that led me to withdraw the last time: a Bureaucrat, the position I’m seeking, is a user whose job it is to be able to identify community feeling and act on it. There was a distinct community feeling that my then- course of action was not ideal for a Bureaucratship candidate. So, as I stated in my rationale for withdrawing, I returned to a normal participation in RfA and RfA talk, thus abiding by that community feeling.

I will also expand on my RfA experience, since I feel this needs to be made especially clear: during the time I did not post intentionally, I continued to visit RfA regularly, keeping myself up to speed with everything that was going on here: the issues, the candidates, everything. I just did not post, since I was striving for complete neutrality. But my experience in RfA goes back a long, long time. In fact, and I believe this says a lot, there is only a handful of users around here that have been involved with RfA consistently for as long as I have. Although I am not the most prolific contributor (time limitations), I am one of the most experienced users around in RfA. During this time, there were also spells when I went without posting here because I was going through busier times in my life, being able to spend only a few minutes a day in the project. I didn’t have the time to review the candidates’ history then, so I didn’t vote (I do not do it lightly), and it was difficult for me to join ongoing discussions because I didn’t have the time to follow up on the posts. But I always “popped my head in”, and kept myself aware of the main issues that were going on around here.

Participation in RfA talk As I do throughout the project, I join discussions whenever I feel that I can contribute a view point that can help with the issue at hand. Another key aspect of my participation is brainstorming. Whenever I feel that I have an idea that might benefit RfA, I submit it for community review. I believe that this has an importance for RfA. I also find that other users’ feedback helps me with putting my own ideas in perspective: maybe there was a flaw in my line of thinking that I never noticed, or a modification that would make the idea even better that didn’t occur to me. When submitting an idea, however, I am always attentive to the fact that things only get done with consensus, so if there is none, or if it is against my position, I back off, and either move on or go back to the drawing board. I’d like to believe that even the users who have disagreed with my ideas consistently appreciate the effort that I put in aimed at the good of the project.

As a user I'd like to think that I'm always friendly, flexible and open for suggestions. I always strive to be polite and thorough in my remarks, and I believe that civility is one of the keys (if not the key) for the functioning of the project.

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.

As an Administrator I have been one for roughly a year. During this time, I am very proud to say that my record has been next to spotless. 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.

Need for Bureacrats I believe there is still one to be met. First, despite the list at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, the factual reality is that only about three or four Bureaucrats are active with some regularity, and on RfA, of those four, there’s still an uneven distribution of tasks, since only half of those are doing the large majority of the work. In addition to that, there’s a very interesting characteristic: all of the Bureaucrats that are active regularly are the Bureaucrats that were promoted more recently. This means that we are in actuality recomposing our Bureaucratship, since the Bureaucrats that are picking up the slack are those who have been chosen in the last year and a half, and they are only the four I mentioned (and with only two doing more than half of the work). Since Cecropia’s departure from the Bureaucracy, there seems to be no more exceptions to that trait.

The Bureaucracy and how will I proceed if promoted I suppose this is second nature to any serious candidate, so this should be no surprise. As I understand it, Bureaucrats are, first and foremost, servants to the community. A Bureaucrat’s job is to uphold community decisions, reached by consensus. Although only a technicality, I sometimes wonder if we should even use the expression “Bureaucrat’s discretion”, since it is not the Bureaucrat’s will that should be done, ever. It is the community’s decision. In those situations where the Bureaucrat has to “decide”, as it is normally put, I feel that what the Bureaucrat does is only to investigate further, in order to determine the true, underlying will, or decision. And once that is determined, the Bureaucrat then acts as mandated by that communal will.

Furthermore, Bureaucrats answer to the community, and that demands that all of their actions be transparent and justifiable, so that the community will always know why a Bureaucrat proceeded in any given fashion. A Bureaucrat must also be completely neutral in any instance s/he is going to perform. This is a fundamental part of my pledge if promoted: I will always maintain a neutral perspective, acting only in the interest of the community. As a result, if I were to post in any RfA expressing a point of view of any kind (such as supporting or opposing a candidate), this would mean an unequivocal recusation from performing as a Bureaucrat in that RfA (i.e. closing it).

I also subscribe to the position that a Bureaucrat should never interfere in the consensus-building process of an active RfA. His job is to determine the outcome of the discussions that lasted for seven days, and s/he cannot have any influence in the workings of those discussions, because, as I said, it is not the Bureaucrat’s will or opinions that are to prevail.

Finally, I’d like to say, since this is often asked of candidates for Bureaucratship, that my pledge to work as a Bureaucrat is not limited to RfA. Even though Requests for Adminship is the main occupation, and the most important, I will pledge to work in username change and bot flagging, which are also attributions of Bureaucrats. Furthermore, if promoted I would remain prepared to do my share of the work if Requests for rollback privileges ever became policy and Bureaucrats were charged with the task (see also my answer to the second extra question, asked in my original RfB, below).

Support

  1. Support - answers make me feel good about Redux -- Tawker 04:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per Tawker. Naconkantari 04:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, and I almost stayed out of this, as I've been an admin only a short time. After reading the candidate's self-nom statement and the answers to the questions, however, I find the approach to be the correct one. RadioKirk talk to me 04:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, per Tawker. Redux looks like a good candidate for the job. --digital_me(t/c) 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per Tawker. --Rory096 06:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per Tawker. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 06:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as I did in your 2nd RfB. Personally I agree that a bureaucrat candidate should stay out of RfA's for a couple of months before putting themselves up for RfB so that they are neutral. I think that you were unlucky to be opposed on your last RfB because of your "inactivity" on RfAs. Great admin! DarthVader 06:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Capable for the job. No reason to oppose. Thank you for your application. --Ligulem 09:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support after reading questions and the above statement – Gurch 09:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Terence Ong 10:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support for the same reasons as last time. Redux has clearly put a lot of thought into his applications, it is obviously not a whim, and this greatly reassures me that he will be a good bureaucrat. Rje 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per Tawker. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support He will definitely be a good bureaucrat. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Very well written nom. juppiter talk #c 16:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, agree with Juppiter. Royboycrashfan 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
  16. Strong Support The candidate's statement and answers to questions are extraoridinary in their thoughtfulness. I don't know when candidate "mind melded" with Cecropia, but I'm glad to see the result! :) Xoloz 17:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per Xoloz, seems to be a worth addition to the ranks. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per nom. --Tone 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. A very thoughtful set of answers. Redux has obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this, and knows what he's getting himself into. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. per Nom. (It is clear that this user cares tremendously about the future of Wikipedia by simply looking at the nomination text)--SomeStranger (T | C) 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. My concerns in the 2nd RfB have been truly laid to rest by reading (and learning from) what Redux has said since, principally on WT:RFA, but also on other discussion pages. His responses have been consistently alarmingly accurate, and I am made very happy by the detail of his lengthy opening statement above, not to mention the precision of the answer to Q1. Normally, I'd have become wary at this point of a third RfB in a (comparatively) short time-scale. But in this case, there is no question that what has occured in the interim is laying to rest of concerns and of demonstrations of the candidate's knowledge and skill. -Splash - tk 20:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support based on reading the above and Redux's contributions over time on WT:RFA. --W.marsh 21:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Jaranda wat's sup 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support based on answer to my question, #8. -lethe talk + 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak support. Since RfA is being hadled quite well and only a few BCrats are needed to very well keep up the RfAs here, I'm not confinced that there is any short or mid-term need for more. On the other hand, the chances of Redux sckewing up are far less than the chances of 2 crats suddenly having to leave and causing BCrat backlogs of any sort. I have a lot of confidence in this user as an admin and editor, and his question answers give me an equally optomistic view of his ability to look into close RfAs. Remember to look out for needy bots that will need to be flagged too :).Voice-of-AllTalk 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per the answer to question 8. Thetruthbelow (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --Jay(Reply) 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per Tawker. Looks good and worthy of the rare RfB support vote. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support excellent answers to questions -- Samir धर्म 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per answers and all above. G.He 05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Looks good --Tarawneh 05:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Congently written nom & good answers given below. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. In spite of the horribly long acceptance essay, I have no reason to believe he would misuse the community's trust, and that he would reserve his bureaucrat status only to promotion-related activities. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Richardcavell 06:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Well thought out. Great work.--Dave Boven 09:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - again. BD2412 T 17:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support this project needs more bureaucrats. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 20:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Crazynas 00:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per his answers abakharev 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I see no reason to oppose. The Gerg 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support; we need more bureaucrats. Ral315 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. --TantalumTelluride 03:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - after being a little worried after reading about 2 previous RfBs, I've been full convinced. Best of luck! --james(lets talk) 12:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Answers are comprehensive, well-written, and display both an understanding of the process and the maturity required of Bureaucrats. Good luck! -- Avi 12:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Could use another Bureaucrat. Redux seems to be mature and aware of policy from the answers to questions. --Scott 16:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support look good! —Khoikhoi 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Geo.plrd 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Redux seems to have the right motivation and has given reasoned responses to the questions relating ot his candidacy and in his nomination.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. He is a great editor and a great administrator. Will certainly be a great bureaucrat. Carioca 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. A class act all around. Bucketsofg✐ 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I feel very comfortable with the answers to the questions below and the dilligence shown in his statement above. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support -- With your credentials, and your explations, I do believe that you are needed, and your become a bureaucrat. Danl 08:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I think the candidate could have been a bit more detailed in their essay and answers (KIDDING!). Seriously this is an extremely thoughtful candidate who has an excellent grasp of what it means to be a 'crat. While I agree with HappyCamper in sentiment (and applaud HC for bringing it up), I'd like to see 'crats move in this direction as well, I don't think it's a reason to oppose this particular candidate. Strong Support ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. I studied the edits and made up my mind for a definte support. --Bhadani 16:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Seems a bit desperate for job (too much like a politician) but I'm sure will be a great bureaucrat. -ReuvenkT C E 17:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Will make a great b-boy and lord knows we need more of them.--Alabamaboy 17:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support -- from The King of Kings 18:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. gidonb 19:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC) just making sure you will not fail again to reach the 80% gidonb 19:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Agathoclea 22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support A great admin. Good answers! —Lesfer (talk/@) 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support from a less active (but not inactive) bureaucrat. Warofdreams talk 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Support Wonderful attitude and intelligence that speaks of experience, dedication as well as determination. Rama's Arrow 03:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Good admin, excellent candidate for B-crat. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Joe I 08:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per Tawker. --Yarnalgo 23:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. You know, I've read over your userpage, your answers below, the supports above and the solitary oppose. I happen to like your answers, and I'm hardly enough of a "personage of note" here to make a difference, but I think I'm going to go with Support. You seem to be able to fill the shoes of Bureaucrat well, neutral when you need to be, and you've learned that you can't always be neutral, but know you have to always be fair. I hope your mop gets a couple extra buttons put on it soon. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Should make a good b'crat. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Looks good.--blue520 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, well reasoned answers to questions show the right mindset for the position. Gwernol 11:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, of course. NoSeptember 13:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  73. Obviously, Support. RandyWang (raves/rants) 14:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, naturally. Misza13 T C 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, like his record as admin, like his responses to questions, think he will be a good b'cat. Sandy 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oui - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Although unsure if we need another, if there is to be another then Redux is Ok with us. --hydnjo talk 01:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support, without reservations. Sango123 01:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support good record as admin, can be trusted further --rogerd 04:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I would like to see the next bureaucrat promoted not to just to maintain the RfA process on Wikipedia, but to take a more interactive role with the community. The bureaucrat (in some sense) is in a symbolic position of influence and authority, and what I would really like to see is a candidate use this in a more positive and visible way to help those who contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis. For example, I feel that RfA candidates are often promoted without subsequent followup from the experienced, and this has lead to an increased amount of heterogeneity in how administrative tasks are handled on Wikipedia. Granted, I have mentioned before there are advantages to such a system, but lately, I have been inclined to feel less so. I am also waiting for a candidate to adequately address the political nature of administrators and in particular bureaucrats (since this is an RfB) - sometimes, I am not convinced that it is simply "trust" that is required - this is a quality that is elusive and difficult to qualify. Perhaps more concretely, at present it would be my wish to see something done to address the unhealthy aspects of the RfA process. These issues in my mind, are still not handled with the grace that they deserve, and moreover, many of the subtleties at present are still handled in an stochastic or ambiguous fashion. There are times when I felt a certain amount of leadership was needed, but was not present. I wonder whether the system is set up in such a manner, that this appears intrinsic at times? I would not mind if someone were to simply say it is what it is, but so far, it has not resonated in a convincing fashion. Let me mention in a cursory way that I do remain unconvinced that we need more bureaucrats. In my mind, I think many Wikipedians have used this rationale to oppose because it is in some sense, a respectful, and more euphemistic way to address concerns that are difficult to verbalize on Wikipedia. Ideally, I would like a bureaucrat to be sensitive and conscientious to these issues, and especially so when opinion seems superficially polarizing. Finally, I do not feel it is essential that bureaucrats remain neutral in all decisions they make - what would suffice is that the choices they make remain ethically sound and noncontroversial. --HappyCamper 10:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Very, very tough one. Neutral for now until more arguments sway me. Good luck. NSLE (T+C) at 08:33 UTC (2006-06-05)
    Neutral for now, awaiting question 8 response below -- not sure where it came from but I sure view it as important. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 15:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to support after response -- Samir धर्म 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm going to vote neutral. He sounds to me like he's got the qualifications, but I'm going to wait until he gives us a bit more. Keep it up! :)-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username	Redux
Total edits	5489
Distinct pages edited	1783
Average edits/page	3.079
First edit	21:41, March 7, 2004
	
(main)	2523
Talk	569
User	214
User talk	667
Image	322
Image talk	2
Template	269
Template talk	34
Category	34
Category talk	2
Wikipedia	606
Wikipedia talk	217
Portal	10
Portal talk	20

 G.He 05:17, 6 June 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, but only bearing the verification of extraordinary circumstances that might influence the outcome of the RfA. Anywhere under 75% means that the RfA was unsuccessful.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. I will make the decisions that fall to me and take full responsibility for them. In order to make those decisions, however, I will make sure that I will be able to defend them should they be questioned. That is to say, I will only make decisions the accuracy of which I am extra positive about, and that I know I will be able to explain fully. If I were to be questioned on any decision I’ve made, I will explain my reasons thoroughly. If it ever happens that I don’t feel equipped to make a decision (maybe in my early days at the job, although I have been watching Bureaucrat decisions for a long time, especially Cecropia’s and UninvitedCompany’s, so I have a very good understanding of how to proceed appropriately), I will do the right thing and step aside, leaving the decision to a more experienced Bureaucrat. I will then see to it that I learn from the experience, asking other Bureaucrats questions if necessary, so that I will be prepared to make a similar decision if/when a similar instance presents itself in the future.
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. I expect and accept nothing less of myself. People who have been in contact with me in the project know this. I have always been fair and polite to users throughout the project; the importance of being civil, open-minded and fair has always been very clear to me. The very few users that I have wronged, for any reason, have received a full-hearted apology. Furthermore, I believe that my extensive experience with this project has taken me to a level where policy and community interaction have become second nature to me.
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 it, 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. As answered in my original RfB. Redux 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 would not be requesting Bureaucratship otherwise. I am willing to do more for the project, and if promoted, I will deliver it. All the forums that pertain to Bureaucrat duties and discussions will be added to my watchlist immediately.

The following are the two extra questions that were asked during my original RfB. I thought that it would be useful to repost them and my answers here. Redux

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]
"Demotions are a privilege reserved to Developers." Actually, stewards (some developers are able to flip the switches but generally aren't allowed to), and that only until recently. Bureaucrats now have the privilege of granting and revoking bot flags, and that could always be extended to whatever is necessary. A minor point there, though. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. This is from nearly six months ago, and it is already outdated to some extent. Bot flagging was not done by Bureaucrats then, for instance. The developer/steward quid pro quo was a slip of the tongue. When the first stewards were created, in 2004, and took over those jobs, I was already around, so it was a blast from the past. Redux 17:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. What is the right course of action to take with an active RfA that may have been polluted with many apparent bad-faith votes, motivated by, say, racism or nationalism?
A. As most will remember, this was a central complication during HolyRomanEmperor's latest RfA. Speaking strictly from the point of view of a Bureaucrat (therefore, not as a user or an administrator — of course, a Bureaucrat is both, but when performing as a Bureaucrat, the specific duties must come first), and as I mentioned in my statement, a Bureaucrat should not intervene in the consensus-building process. RfAs must be allowed to progess and the community to discuss freely whatever issues are raised. Noticing that addressing abusive behavior of any kind can and should be done by any user from the community. The correct course of action for the closing Bureaucrat (hence, only when closing the RfA), is to evaluate very carefully the rationales for each participating user as well as the history of any problems that might have found their way into the RfA. Of course, the exact action would only be determined upon examining each case. Redux
Speaking of HRE's RfA, what would you have done in that specific situation? Looking in retrospect, what have you learned from that specific example? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. Well, I can say that I have always understood that a fundamental aspect of a Bureaucrat's role is his neutrality. If this is ever compromised, in however small a way, then the Bureaucrat cannot perform as such in the RfA concerned. Given that, intervening in an active RfA as a Bureaucrat is not a course of action I would adopt. This has always been my position, but HolyRomanEmperor's RfA could be said to have provided a piece of hard evidence that even if things heat up considerably in a RfA, the Bureaucrat must still maintain a completely neutral perspective, which is what will allow him to perform his duties and guarantee that community consensus prevails in the end. Redux
9. What is your view on non-admins closing Requests for adminships? Is it acceptable in a certain area or under certain conditions, or is it never acceptable? (question by Titoxd(?!? - help us), posted 06:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
A. I'm assuming you mean non-Bureaucrats, yes? Bureaucrats are appointed to determine consensus on RfAs and then act on the decision made by the community. That is their job (combinated with the technical ability to promote when it is the case). As such, it can be said that determining consensus (which is done when closing RfAs) is the Bureaucrats' attribution and it should be perfomed by them. That being said, there is, however, an instance where non-Bureaucrats may close RfAs: when the candidate withdraws, because then there is no determination of consensus. In addition, any user could delist a RfA that has been set up as a blatant hoax or joke (example: suppose a one-day-old account nominated Willy on Wheels for adminship). Redux
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_3&oldid=1147963458"