Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/X!

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.

X![edit]

Final (15/6/3); ended 03:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate

Nomination[edit]

X! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Co-nom by Juliancolton (talk · contribs): As you've probably noticed, there has been an increase in the number of recent RfBs. At Kingturtle's suggestion, I went out in search for potential RfB candidates and X! immediately came to mind. An administrator since June 2008 and an editor since early 2007, X! is, in my honest and humble opinion, an excellent candidate for 'cratship. In addition to being a skilled bot programmer and operator, X! has contributed significantly to the encyclopedia, with over 15000 total edits. His most substantial work includes Diamond Rio discography and Hurricane Hector (2006). On top of this, X! is a Huggle developer, and as a result he has plenty of vandalism-fighting experience.

As noted above, X! has been an admin for about 9 months. In spite of the unwritten 12-month rule, he has the experience necessary to handle the extra tools. As evidenced by his talk page, X! is a cooperative user who's willing to collaborate with other editors. On a somewhat related note, he has received numerous barnstars; while this may seem insignificant, it shows that the community appreciates his efforts. I've also been impressed by his technical abilities, which are shown through his Toolserver account (and his edit counter). In terms of hard statistics, X! has preformed over 1,800 logged admin actions. Although this is not a particularly high count, he has exhibited excellent judgment and accuracy in his actions.

Why do I believe X! is suited for the job? He has significant experience at crat-related areas such as WP:CHU and RfA, where he has participated in 139 individual discussions. As an active bot operator, he would be able to help supress the backlogs at WP:BRFA. X! contributes almost daily to AfD, closing a multitude of disussions. As such, he has proven able to determine consensus. In addition, he consistently makes use of edit summaries.

I hope you'll agree with me in that he is a fine choice for cratship. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs): I was very pleased when X! told me he was considering pursuing cratship. Here's the situation: Crats are the people who flag bots. In general, it's good to have uninvolved crats who have policy in mind first ahead of the fact of whether the bot actually works or not to prevent problematic bots from becoming flagged. However, with WJBScribe's retirement, we lack someone with the knowledge of both to be able to discern these types of bots most clearly. X! is that person that I feel could step into this role. His Soxbots have done a stellar job at the three username changing request boards, as he has done a stellar job as a clerk for us there as well. He also has a very even temperament towards others and is capable of communication with others. Like Juliancolton, I hope the community will agree that X! is a fine choice to join our bureaucrat ranks. bibliomaniac15 01:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Jdelanoy reminded me that I must accept...

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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 read the discussions. From what I have observed over the many months I have been watching RfAs, it appears that in order to promote, the main question comes down to "does the community trust the person as an administrator?" This is different for every RfA. One RfA can have a 70% support, but if the opposes are weak, is still able to pass. On the flip side, if an RfA has an 80% support, with supports similar to "I like this user", while the opposes have strong arguments, then it could still fail. By strong and weak arguments, I would use these as examples of what I mean:
"X user [not me] has had a history of repeated bad judgement, incivility under fire, and overall bad experiences. While under fire on this page, he calls another editor some obscene names, and starts flaming the whole process. Not only was he uncivil there, he has also had similar experiences at 1, 2, and 3. He also came up to an editor once on their talk page, and started biting them, and instructing them about how they should submit all edits to the talk page before actually making them (a very clear cut case of WP:OWN)."
compared to "I don't like this user, and they reverted one of my edits once."
The first one cites diffs, and presents a significant problem. I would give that much more weight than I would for the second one, which has unverified claims, and does not explain why the user will not be a good administrator.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Pretty much any RfA that is in the discretion zone is going to have criticism. On RfAs with a high amount of support, but a high amount of oppose will obviously have a large group of people annoyed at me. No method of closure will please everybody. I would have 2 options as to where to proceed: close it myself, or initiate a discussion. If I were to close it myself, I would most likely provide a rationale at the top of the page, explaining why I closed it the way I did. Whichever method I take, I would ensure that I am in the highest state of mind, and that I take my time in determining consensus.
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 frequently have new users coming up to me on my talk page, asking for help with an article or some other problem they have onwiki. This is an example of how I engage with the community, and that I can be trusted. Whenever posting an edit anywhere, I always want to make sure that what I'm posting is clueful, civil, and will not cause any hard feelings. I've also been closing AfD nominations, some of which are long, heated, and filled with socks. I feel that I was fair and made the right decisions when making them.


Optional questions from NuclearWarfare adapted from MBisanz[1]

4. How would you close these RfA/Bs? If you opine for a crat chat, please express what you would have said there as the final determination of the outcome.
5. One of of the bureaucrats elected in 2004 has yet to use any of the crat tools and others have used them very rarely. Do you think the bureaucrat position should have a minimum level of activity?
A. While I don't think that there should be a minimum level, I do think that crats should make an effort to use their tools more than occasionally. Yes, this is a volunteer project, and we all have limited times. However, if you are given the tools, you should realize that the community gave you these tools for a reason. I would not think that certain crats should be de-cratted, but I do think that if they were to come back, they don't just jump into the tools.
6. Of the 3,500+ prior RFAs, only eight have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime; of over 100 prior RFBs, only two have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime. Under what circumstances and by what process would you extend an RFA in general?
A. Each RfX is different. The only reason I would extend an RfX would be if partway through, new issues came to light (e.g. sockpuppetry, a name change, or if a problem that many have opposed over was solved). This would be a very rare course of action, and 7 days is a long time as it is. IT is something that should be done sparingly, and be decided for each RfX differently
7. Do you believe that should bureaucrats undergo some periodic reconfirmation?
A. I do not think so. Bureaucrats should only have to go through a reconfirmation if some issue came up, not because of an arbitrary time limit. As I answered in Q5, I don't think that there should be a minimum level of activity, and that people should contribute as they see fit. I see reconfirmation RfXs as a waste of time, and they don't provide much benefit.
8. Francs2000, Optim, Eloquence, Danny, Ugen64, and WJBscribe were decratted at their own requests between 2004 and 2008. Of them all, the only controversial decrattings could be considered Ugen64 who resigned after a dispute over the promotion % for RFBs and Francs2000 who resigned after a dispute over tallying RFA results. Danny's remains the unusual case of him resigning both crat and sysop rights and later being re-RFA'd, all in connection with his ceasing employment at the Wikimedia Foundation. Which of these users would you re-crat if they asked at WP:BN and which would you require to re-run RfB?
Because Francs and Ugen resigned under a cloud, I would not recrat them, but rather have them run through an RfB. Danny resigned due to WP:OFFICE actions, and the community did not have much of a say in his original cratting. And because Optim and Eloquence were decratted a while ago, the standards have changed, and they should rerun. WJB should not rerun, as he resigned uncontroversial, and he was unusually highly respected throughout the community.
4a. Could you explain a bit more on how you personally would have opinioned at the crat chat for ^demon's RfA?
A. I would have opined on not passing him. I see that people have issues with his conduct, and that is a fairly strong argument when it comes to RfA. I would prefer that the RfA is no consensus, and that ^demon run later.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion[edit]

  • Editing stats and admin stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support per nom. bibliomaniac15 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Sure, great to see X running for 'crat.--Res2216firestar 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Obvious support as nom. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hell yes Absolutely. Until It Sleeps 01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. OF COURSE! -download | sign! 01:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fuck yes. Not even redacting the "fuck" on this one.  iMatthew :  Chat  01:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No qualms about supporting whatsoever. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Of course. Good temperament, does bot work, no problems. Hermione1980 01:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Edit Conflicted Support But no conflicts about supporting the editor :) Lucifer (Talk) 01:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I trust both noms, and know the candidate personally. I think this user has the attributes required to be a bureaucrat, pending any significant issues coming to light. — neuro(talk)(review) 01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Withholding support pending a talk with a few of the opposers, may move into another section. — neuro(talk)(review) 03:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Experience and actions in the BAG make me confident X! will be a level headed bureaucrat. No problems as far as I'm aware. —Nn123645 (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Very able user. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Great admin, will make a great bureaucrat. This oppose on an RfA shows a decent rationale and a good use of NOTNOW rather than a "WP:NOTNOW = go away" attitude. Acalamari 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad he didn't write it - User:X!/notnow. Mr.Z-man 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's not my work, but I like how friendly it is, so I use it. :) NukeWar also says that he got it from Dlohcierkiem. link Xclamation point 02:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Copied or not, I think it's far more helpful and courteous to a clearly inexperienced candidate than writing "Oppose - WP:NOTNOW" and then disappearing totally from the RfA in question afterwards. Acalamari 02:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support--Giants27 T/C 02:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support Per iMatthew. — Jake Wartenberg 03:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose: Riana's RFB would be successful while Krimpet's RFA would not be? There's a direct contradiction there that makes me incredibly uncomfortable. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Mainly per Q1, supporters have historically been held to a far lower standard for reasoning. Many of your own RFA votes would seem to meet your own criteria for a weak support argument. Also, history with bots is not exactly stellar. SoxBot V was blocked by Brion for being a waste of resources, the CHU bot has been blocked 5 times for malfunctions, as well as the malfunctioning adminbot incident with the first incarnation of MPUploadBot. Mr.Z-man 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally believe it's only natural for bots to have bugs. Even the most advanced programs—such as ClueBot and SineBot—have been blocked due to malfunctions. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ClueBot has had 1 legitimate block in its history, SineBot has had 2. The SoxBots and MPUploadBot have had a collective total of 16. Additionally, bugs in an adminbot are a Bad Thing. Apparently the bugs in the first version of MPUploadBot were so pervasive that it was unfixable, which is why it uses code written by Chris G now. Mr.Z-man 03:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. X! doesn't strike me as bureaucrat material. I don't believe I've ever seen him make a difficult, or judgemental decision about anything. I'm not interested in work in BAG or other wikiclubs - I'm interested in an interest in the RFA process, with productive comments made there (I don't care about hanging out at CHU or bot pages, because decisions made there do not make nearly as much of a difference as they do on RFA). He simply does not strike me as making a good bcrat - normally I'd expect an admin to be pretty outstanding, and while he is not a bad admin, he doesn't strike me as particularly great. I also agree with Z-man (but not MZMcBride, it's not a contradiction). Majorly talk 02:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I tend to only support those RfB's of exceptional administrators who have shown beyond good judgment, otherwise, we'd have hundreds of bureaucrats (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but something I have my own reasons for not wanting). No offense, but nothing you've done really strikes me as exceptional. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Oppose - refusing to revert damage caused by one's bot [2], and leaving more responsible editors to clean up the mess [3] is unacceptable behavior for a bot operator, and suggests that X! would use the bureaucrat tools in a similarly reckless manner. Erik9 (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I am going to have to echo both Majorly and Rjd0060 here. While X! is a fine administrator, he simply does not posses those "'crat qualities" that I look for. Like Majorly stated, I have yet to see X! make any difficult decisions or step into an area of controversy. Something that 'crats do on a regular basis. On top of that X! simply does not have enough experience under his belt. I like to see 'crat candidates with at least a year and a half of administrative experience. Sorry X!, it is nothing personal. Tiptoety talk 03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I think he'll make a good bureaucrat, but this event and the attitude of "I broke too many to fix it" soured me a little. Having said that, as a programmer I can certainly understand the stress of the situation, he apologized for the tone, and everything else (from a simple user's perspective) seems fine. tedder (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Leaning support, but am going to have to think about this one a little more before I decide. Steve Crossin Talk/24 02:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning oppose - Concerns are worrying, moved from support. This is a temporary neutral until I have decided what to do. — neuro(talk)(review) 03:28, 3 April 2009 (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 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/X!&oldid=1082479635"