Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Titoxd

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.

Titoxd[edit]

final (67/19/6) ended 21:20 February 17, 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd (talk · contribs · count) Well, let's see how this goes. I've been a Wikipedia editor for 10 months (since April Fools' day to be exact), and an Administrator since October. I was asked a while ago if I would ever like to be a bureaucrat, and I've now decided to self-nominate. In my stint of time in Wikipedia, I've racked about 12,000 edits, blocked an indeterminate amount of vandals, helped in two Featured Articles, and on 22 December 2005, I had the "honor" of being the first admin to have semiprotected a page, the infamous George W. Bush. I'm a "regular" at Miscellany for deletion, Deletion review and I close AFD's if other users leave me any by the time I get there. I also am active on RC Patrol, and my name is visible frequently here on RFA.

There are two reasons I decided to request bureaucrat status. The first, is that RFA is projected to slowly get busier and busier as Wikipedia grows, and I'd like to help out with that. The other one is a bit different; it involves Requests for rollback privileges. Whether the policy is approved or not in the current status, there seems to be enough support for some form of it. As stipulated, a bureaucrat would be allowed to remove the "rollback bit" for someone who abuses it, regardless of how it is assigned, so the current bureaucrat base would have an extra job to do. Ilyanep has commented that they can handle it, but that a few more bureaucrats would be helpful, and again, I'd like to help.

Before you vote, I'd encourage you to check my contributions and decide if I'm suitable for the position. Also, ask me any questions if you need clarification. Thanks! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Solid history of contributions, solid history as an admin, heck of a toolsmith, unlikely to abuse privs. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support will be a good bureaucrat. a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 2x Edit conflicted Support; great user, good answers to questions. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support - this user definitely deserves it. Also note that this is my 10,000th edit. — FireFox • T • 21:40, 10 February 2006
  5. Support --Latinus (talk (el:)) 21:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per above --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 21:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Without reservation; complete, unconditional support. Essjay Talk • Contact 22:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Not sure whether we need more 'crats, but adding this trusted user to the list certainly can't do any harm. --Doc ask? 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Seems an obvious choice, no further comment necessary. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong sekrit love affair support. Who doesn't like Tito? Cause I sure do! :D Oh, and support per all the above, and because Tito has done so much for Wikipedia.--Shanel 22:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I have had a few run-ins with Titoxd here and there, and I have nothing but good things to say about him. If he wouldn't make a good Bureaucrat, I can't imagine who would. --Ashenai 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support--Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 23:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Jaranda wat's sup 23:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Great interactions with Titoxd, I fully trust him with more powers. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. He has been a reputable contributor and administrator, so why not? Also note that this is my 10,201st edit. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support if we trust the user and believe he is knowledgeable enough not to accidentally misuse his power then why would we vote against him? I dont understand the "we dont need beaucrats" perspective. KI 02:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I thought about this one for a long time. I'm not one to take the promotion of a relatively new admin to b'crat lightly, and I still don't think we need more. Titoxd is truly exceptional, though. I'm glad he's nominated, and I want him to get this job so badly, I'll ignore the fact that I don't see a need for more b'crats. He's that good. Xoloz 03:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, good admin and editor. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, good admin, is very open and friendly and is always willing to talk about an issue. Tawker 04:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, of course. Good admin, great Wikipedian, no legitimate reason to oppose. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, great Wikipedian and great help! :) --AySz88^-^ 05:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Solid history of contributions. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support - exception of the century vote here. Usually, for me to support a bureaucrat nomination, the user would have to have been actively editting for 1 year and an admin ofr 6 months but, from my extended interaction with him both as Esperanza Advisory Council member and IRC regular, I have to support; and strongly. One of the nicest, kindest and happy Wikipedians about he would (and I hope, will) make a great, no, a fantastic, addition to the preverbial beaurocrat coffers. --Celestianpower háblame 08:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Will no doubt continue to become an even more superb user, even after bureaucratship is granted. —BazookaJoe 14:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I think the positive reasons have been illustrated enough above. --tomf688{talk} 15:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Titoxd is a user who is devoted to the details of administrative procedure, and therefore the perfect candidate for bureaucrat status! Also he is one of the most helpful, and kind user's I've ever had the pleasure of interacting with. I have no doubt that he would be an efficient bureaucrat. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Never interacted with him, but looking at his part history I feel he would make a good crat. Plus we need more people in the crat and checkuser positions, else risk a shortage in the future as in the case of checkuser. Mike (T C) 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support -- Banez 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Very knowledgable about all procedure, and always very helpful regarding it. -- Natalya 19:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support x 10000 and a grand piano per above Sceptre (Talk) 20:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. support William M. Connolley 20:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  33. Strong Support Absolutely. Karmafist 20:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong, unqualified support. (Gee, I hope MarkSweep doesn't blank my vote on the grounds of it being an "out-of-process opinion"!) Titoxd is one of only a handful of admins I've come to trust implicitly. He'll almost unquestionably be one of the most reliable 'crats right out of the gate. --Aaron 21:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's completely unnecessary to trash MarkSweep like that.--Alhutch 22:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was completely unnecessary for him to trash me on the Admin Noticeboard and falsely claim that my votes are somehow invalid because I added an extra word to them. At least I had the decency to link to him when I called him out on it. I only found his sneaky, nameless attack by dumb luck. --Aaron 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Two wrongs don't make a right.--Alhutch 01:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support has been an excellent admin. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Trixod has been a very active admin and I feel that in doing so, has earned this priviledge. --Zsinj 01:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Of course - David Gerard 01:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I trust this admin. Jacoplane 17:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, I feel that this user will do great as a bureaucrat.SoothingR 19:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. A very trustworthy, capable admin. More knowledgeable about Wikipedia customs than most more experienced admins. --TantalumTelluride 19:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Good user, would make a good bureaucrat. Ral315 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support of the "He's not one already!?" sort. You can't have too many good officials. Especially given the recent exodus of long-time, talent we've been suffering of late.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, can be trusted with bureaucrat powers. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, trustworthy. ComputerJoe 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oh em Gee Support — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support RexNL 01:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I'm not crazy about a less-than-one-year-old bureaucrat, but you made a strong case for yourself. It's time to break tradition and appoint this youngster. :o Acetic Acid 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support: Level-headed admin with a decent rationale for needing bureaucratship. Savidan 05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Don't let us down! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Our Administrator- and bureauctratship conventions are curious. We proclaim adminship to be "no big deal", and generally scrutinize adminstrator candidates less closely than we do bureaucrat candidates. Yet, adminship bestows more permissions, and grants users those powers and charges that have historically proven to be more prone to abuse than the single additional permission granted bureaucrats. Nevertheless, we are asked to choose under these norms. It has long seemed to me that one fundamental quality that makes a good administrator (as opposed to an adequate one) is the very quality that qualifies him or her for bureaucratship. The folks who have it, UC-like, are ready for bureacratship considerably before the arbritrary 365 days; the folks who don't won't be suitable in 365 weeks. Michael Snow, a long-time user whose opinions I've often found compelling, once called it "an appreciation of community norms...they need to have a very keen sense of the mood in the room in order to make the right call." Titoxd, from what I've seen, has this good sense. The fellow's not perfect, of course—Chris Parham and Splash have kindly brought our attentions to one instance in which he may fairly be said to have erred. I do not think, however, that this is the rule with Tito, but rather the exception. He has my support. ENCEPHALON 08:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support A diligent contributor, who's work at Wikipedia was for the best, and will continue to be for the best. --Jay(Reply) 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Good guy. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Amazing contributer, amazing admin, amazing guy. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support (even if he doesn't close parentheses). Shanel: What do you mean by "secret?" Anyway, tito's a great dude. --Rory096 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Sounds like he can be trusted :) Brian | (Talk) 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support although there are probably users more deserving to be a bureaucrat, Titoxd should be a good choice for the job.  Grue  07:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - I trust Tito. -- Szvest 16:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  59. Supportxd. LordViD 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support. the wub "?!" 23:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support looks good. pschemp | talk 06:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per strong performance to date. bd2412 T 16:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Positive feeling for this.--MONGO 05:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Very good and reasonable answers to questions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Good user. Good luck and good night. Sasquatch t|c 18:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Looks good. Krashlandon (e) 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Even if the vote has already technically ended, it's never too late to voice one's support for a candidate as well-qualified and deserving of the position as Titoxd is. I've seem him everywhere I go on Wikipedia and my encounters with him have firmly established my trust in him as an exemplary Wikipedian and an excellent candidate for bureaucratship. --M@thwiz2020 23:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose: I'm not convinced by this nomination that we need more 'crats now, and if we did, I support only admins with considerable length of experience for this role. Jonathunder 22:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: I just don't believe that 'crat powers should go to someone who sees a large number of blocks as a badge of honour Cynical 23:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is he flaunting it? He said "an indeterminate amount of." --Shanel 23:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I had a tough time deciding where my vote would go. You're a great guy and admin nd everything, I agree about time spent as an admin. If you come back in two months, I'd support. Nothing personal, of course. NSLE (T+C) 01:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that I was promoted at 1 year and 1 month and Raul654 was promoted at a little less than a year from what I count. And perhaps others at less time a Wikipedian than that. There's no reason to deny good candidates who are newcomers. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Needs more time as an admin. WikiFanatic 03:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't see an unacceptable backlog of bureaucratic chores and so I see no benefit to appointing new bureaucrats with a new learning curve to take care of those chores. —Cleared as filed. 15:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Cleared as filed. Again, nothing personal, I think you're a great editor. enochlau (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose From what I have seen a very good, level-headed administrator. I would, however, like to see more experience in an admin role before a bureaucrat appointment. TigerShark 17:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Unfortunately, comments at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback_privileges present a poor understanding of consensus. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Seems like a nice person, but hasn't been an admin long enough to do this yet, in my opinion. Thumbelina 17:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose at this time, would like to see more experience first. Silensor 19:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Really sorry, but I'm just not sure. You have been an administrator for only 4 months. You don't even have a year's experience as an editor. Will support in future. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 01:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Good editor. Fine administrator. Unfortunately, has only been an administrator for four months, and I would expect bureaucrats to have a pile of experience. Sorry. Proto||type 10:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. You're doing a great job as an sysop and editor, but I'm sorry to oppose as per Cleared as filed. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose without prejudice per Cleared As Filed and the rationale stated in the last four RfB's I've voted in. For the record, Titoxd is a fantastic admin and a great editor, but we just don't need more bureaucrats. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose I just don't see a need for more 'crats at this time. Perhaps if/when there is more to do --Krich (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. We have enough Bureaucrats. It's not the next logical step from admin. -AKMask 01:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per AKMask. Juppiter 03:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose a) nothing personal meant by this b) self-nominations for 'crat make me nervous c) no new 'crats needed at this time. If nominated later by 3rd party, I will re-consider Merecat 05:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it matters anyway, but historically, most bureaucrats have been expected to ask for the bureaucrat bit themselves. If I recall correctly, the only one who has passed an RFB recently and not self-nominated was Francs2000. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose More time on the Admin job and as an editor required IMHO, nothing personal, I would encourage to reapply in the future. --Wgfinley 06:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, leaning towards Support. I generally hold a one year term of service requirement for crat votes, see also additional question below. xaosflux Talk/CVU 05:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Titoxd is a great administrator, but I'm not sure we need more bureaucrats.--Alhutch 18:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral for now while I ponder. First, I see no need for bureaucrat additions at present. Our recent creations have not gone so well as they might have. Secondly, I do not perceive the problems cited on RfA; if they manifest themselves, then offer your services then. Thirdly, three months as an admin and less than a year editing is very substantially too soon. The remainder of my comments I have moved below per the withdrawal I've attached to them. (I took Titoxd's reply with me for continuity.) -Splashtalk 03:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Still considering....Flying Canuck 01:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral for now, marking this page and considering. I'm concerned by the length of service (only 4 months as an admin, less than a year as an editor). He's never given me a reason to oppose, so... neutral for now. -- nae'blis (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral While I like Titoxd and think he's made a good contribution to the wiki... i'm going to have to remain neutral since i dont feel we need more bcrats at this point in time.  ALKIVAR™ 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Oppose. Titoxd is an editor whom I respect immensely and on whom I (hope I) am on good working terms with. However, this nomination is both unconvincing and deeply disturbing. First, I see no need for bureaucrat additions at present. Our recent creations have not gone so well as they might have. Secondly, I do not perceive the problems cited on RfA; if they manifest themselves, then offer your services then. Thirdly, three months as an admin and less than a year editing is very substantially too soon. Most importantly however, is this Requests for Rollback which is very plainly the real reason for this RfB and a proposal in which Titoxd has been very active. That proposal has failed to reach consensus on any of the process, philosophy or principles involved. It seems clearly evident to me that this request is principally so that Titoxd could use his newfound responsibility to push this idea even though it needs substantial revision before any further progress. At present, there is an entirely invented feeling among the supporters of that proposal that they can go ahead with it regardless, on some sort of trial basis despite the very serious and very numerous and very respected opposition to it. It cannot. Titoxd, you have to come to realise that. The RfB here hinges principally on this proposal which is not yet supported, operational or about to become either. Don't try to gain a position of influence to push your current projects; RfB is forever, not just for Christmas. Protestations that this is not the main reason for such an early RfB are, from my perspective, going to fall on deaf ears. You have to justify why it should form such an integral part of your request here, why we should suppose it isn't the main part of your request given that it does, and why we should suppose that, given the preceding, and your timing of your request, that the two are not intricately related to the intention to use the position to further RfR. And I don't want lectures on good-faith, so don't deliver them. -Splashtalk 00:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ok, I was thinking about not replying to any oppose comments, but I have to reply to this one. I am not planning on using the weight of a bureaucrat to push RFR. That was the only thing that was making me hesitate to apply, because it might give improper opinions. Perhaps you don't believe me - well, that I cannot do anything about. As for pushing the proposal, I agreed with you that it cannot be implemented in its current form, and I suggested the trial, but I don't have any intent on pushing it. Again, you can believe me on that one or not. In fact, you can check that I am trying to get as many opinions as possible to enhance the proposal. Check Mav's talk page, I've already contacted him about this. As for why I advertised it prominently: well, there seems to be an impression that we don't need bureaucrats, and it is clear that there would be more demand if it passed. If it didn't, I still want to help with RFA. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Private conversation persuades me that Titoxd means as he says, so those parts of my comments are withdrawn, although the general caution to RfR (and Titoxd's involvement in it stands). -Splashtalk 03:54, 12 February 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. Yes. In spite of all the recent discussions surrounding RFA reform, the current threshold for promoting administrators has not changed much. The way I understand it, if a user receives 75% or less support in a nomination, adminship is not handed out to him on that occasion, and if he receives more than 80%, it is given to him (after checking and if necessary discounting sockpuppets, bad faith, and other concerns). Between those two numbers, there is a gray area in which the decision falls back to me; in those cases, I would carefully weigh the concerns presented by the users who support and who oppose and then come to a decision. If there's any doubt about what to do, I would consult first with other bureaucrats. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. In controversial cases, I would first consult with other bureaucrats to make sure I am not "missing" something extremely obvious. However, if after doing that, I see that there is a clear idea in my mind as to what the correct course of action would be, I would make a decision and stick by it. If questioned, I would state the reasoning behind what I did, of course. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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'll try to tackle this question one part at a time. I strive to be fair as much as I can, and even though I've involved myself in a lot of deletion-related activities, I haven't been accused of misuse or bad faith (and I'll do my best to ensure that this link remains red. As for knowledge of policy, (not to toot my own horn, ;)) I can say that I've actively helped making one, so I know the way that things work around here. I'm usually asked by other editors / administrators to voice my opinion on some issues. I also try to make frequent communication with other editors, and to answer questions addressed to me as fast as possible. I also aknowledge that I'm not perfect, so I am not afraid to say that I made a mistake when I make one. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. If promoted, the only type of discussion I'll ever have about any decision involving bureaucrat powers would be with other bureaucrats, and to make use of the Bureaucrats' noticeboard as the venue of first resort. I can't stop other users from trying to influence me about those decisions, but I won't pay any attention to them. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:20, 10 February 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. I already am a frequent voter in RFAs, so visiting this page would not be a problem. As for time, Interiot's Tool says that I spend a significant amount of time on Wikipedia, so I'm bound to come here at least once per day on most regular days. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6 You've been at Wikipedia for less than a year, and only been an admin for five months. What would you say to users who would call this too short a time to learn the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. Good question. Since I've been here, I've involved myself in policy issues - I've been involved in Votes for Undeletion / Deletion Review for a long time now. Also, I spend a substantial amount of time here daily (one time I was here for 16 hours), and when I'm not actually editing, I'm reading. Most of the time, I'm "refreshing" my policy by re-reading policy pages from time to time. I've also been active at the Help Desk, where I've learned more than a few things and brushed up my knowledge of the "ins and outs" of Wikipedia, as you called them, even more. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7 You've mentioned having WP:RFR be a possible future 'crat role you would be able help with. What is your feeling on delegating permission groups a la carte? (i.e. Do you see WP:Requests for View Deleted Histories, WP:Requests for Protection Permissions, etc. each having their own areas?) added by xaosflux Talk/CVU
A. Actually, since rollback is an editing tool which can be undone by any user, not just an administrator, it is easier for it to be detached from the administrative package than for other tools. The other tools should remain as part of the sysop package, since they require a substantial amount of trust by the community, and are much harder to undo. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8 What are your thoughts on the current RfA procedure? Do you think it should be improved, or is it working fine as is?  Grue  16:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. The biggest problem with the current RFA procedure, at least in my perspective, is that some nominees are not inspected as thoroughly as they should. However, that is not something that can easily be addressed in a systemic manner, I'm afraid. The only way to fix that is for individuals to pay more scrutiny to each candidate. That said, I'm not opposed to trying new things out, such as DFA (and you can see I've asked questions in Lar's discussion to further advance the trial being done there). Titoxd(?!? - help us) 17:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Titoxd&oldid=1148691443"