Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Francs2000

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Francs2000[edit]

final (70/5/0) ended 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Francs2000 (talk · contribs) – With over 33,000 contributions and steady time spent editing here, I think he has proven himself capable of being able to handle more than the mop and the bucket now. He has definitely helped the community, newbies, and Wikipedia itself. Think that giving him a chance to be a bureaucrat is an honor for us. Remember: after all, it WILL HELP Wikipedia. Let's make him one now!

Before we start elections, I want to ask certain other questions: Do you believe he would do a good job? Is he capable? And before opposing because there is no shortage of bureaucrats, let me respond by stating that adding Francs2000 would not harm anyone, but it would holistically aide the bureaucrats currently working here by adding another dedicated and invaluable member to their ranks. I have never believed that there can be a shortage in talent, thus, I believe that a dedicated admin. who deserves the chance to be a bureaucrat is Francs. By helping to allow Francs2000 be an adm., we would help Wikipedia in general. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Yes I accept the nomination. This project does need more brueaucrats to keep up with requests here at RfA and I am more than willing to step into these shoes. I actually wanted to self-nominate a couple of months ago but as I self-nominated for adminship back in February 2004 I decided I would wait and see how long it would be before someone else suggested it and here I am!
A quick bio for those that don't know me: I made my first edit to Wikipedia under this username in September 2003 although I had been editing without a username since April of that year. I have been a steady editor since that time and was made an admin on 1st March 2004. My proudest achievement on Wikipedia has been creating an article for every town, village and hamlet in Buckinghamshire in the UK and a lot more about local history besides: I am also the founder member of the UK Wikipedians' noticeboard and of the UK Collaboration of the week, although the latter is taking a break from operations at the moment. I also help maintain the UK portal.
As for admin duties I am most likely to be found patrolling recent changes and dealing with backlogs and in the past I spent a lot of time closing deletion discussions. I have never knowingly violated the three revert rule, I have never engaged in an edit war and I have never been the subject of a request for comment. In short I believe I am a good editor and I am committed to the Wikipedia community. -- Francs2000 17:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support will make a good bureaucrat. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 18:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (I was supposed to get the first vote, : ) ![reply]
  3. Support; hard to find one better qualified. Antandrus (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Not just support, but "hell yes" I support. Always seems like this user is doing good stuff for Wikipedia. --Alabamaboy 18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Well trusted user. →FireFox 18:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Astrotrain 18:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Thanks for stepping up. --Ancheta Wis 18:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, trustworthy user. JYolkowski // talk 19:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Aye. —Nightstallion (?) 19:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. King of All the Franks 19:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support. I can;t really think of anything else to add to what anyone else had said, but Francs2000 is somebody we all trust. And having another 'crat couldn't hurt.--Shanel 19:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. oppose...err... I mean STRONGEST SUPPORT POSSIBLE. Couldn't think of anyone better. — Moe ε 20:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: He's been here longer than me, and is always doing good works for the benefit of the project. He's had more than his fair share of stress from vandals etc, a problem with which he deals with well. He also seems to like doing the dull chores around the place so he should make a good bureaucrat. Giano | talk 21:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-2 21:54
  15. Support. Go gett'em tiger! -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support Yes Yes Yes, excellent user --Jaranda wat's sup 22:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. support. Good, consistent admin, should make a fine bcrat. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. -- Phædriel shoot! 01:17, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. -- DS1953 talk 03:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, dedicated and fair. —Kirill Lokshin 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - I agree with Antandrus :-) --HappyCamper 06:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support It's all been said above, excellent choice. Maybe he can help put the wheels back on. Rx StrangeLove 06:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - would make a great bureaucrat. Warofdreams talk 16:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Trusted user and admin, great choice for a bureaucrat. -- Jbamb 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - an excellent choice, a good active bureaucrat is just what we need. NoSeptember talk 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - I see no problems. --Ixfd64 03:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Lupo 09:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. We do need more bureaucrats, and he's as good a candidate as any. Ambi 09:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. I have told you I don't want to be a bureaucrat. No, erm, wait. It's not me who is up for bureaucracy. Support, we need more bureaucrats. — JIP | Talk 11:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, experienced and sensible. Proto t c 12:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support --Terence Ong Talk 14:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support We need more bureaucrats and he's a very good and very active admin. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. Leithp (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per above, can't say it better and the entire "we don't need more bureacrats" argument is just bogus to me.Gator (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support'. Francs is useful to the project. I still don't understand the opposition to having more bureaucrats. It's not some sort of elite club. The more people we have to do mundane tasks, the more time those people have to do other non-mundane things. Kingturtle 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 21:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support whether we need more bureaucrats or not. --TantalumTelluride 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. A trustworthy, capable, and peace-loving admin. Owen× ☎ 00:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support a consistently fair and solid contributor. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Sure bet.--MONGO 05:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Neutralitytalk 06:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 06:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support a trustworthy and considerate Wikipedian, and perfectly able to fill this role.--cj | talk 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. --Ian Pitchford 12:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. the wub "?!" 13:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Committed to NPOV --Yalto 18:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Very Much Support. An awesome, caring, and over qualified candidate that is actually active in RfA, I am all for it! Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I was initially reluctant to vote since even though I haven't had a large amount of interaction with Francs but after reviewing his contributions and his attitude both from his statements on his talk page (and archives) and on other talk pages I think he'd make a very good bureaucrat. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support If we're to have more B's (and I think we're still a long way short of any real demonstrated need) seems a very good choice. And as a bonus, a very active, non-US 'crat might spare us a Thanksgivinggate next year... Alai 01:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Excellent editor and admin. Participation in Rfas and knowledge of admin requirements and expectations is excellent. He practically lives here! I'm glad to support. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Where I graduated from, a statement is made by a senior academic before each person graduates; translated it says "...I present...whom I know to be worth as much by character as by learning to proceed to the Degree of...". That applies in this case. I have thought hard about this and want to make several things clear so as to avoid any inconsistency in future: 1) I am not persuaded of the case that we need any more bureaucrats and I do think that is reason enough to oppose; it is a power that should be held no more widely than is necessary; 2)I am unhappy as indicated below at the nature of this Request. RsfB are by self-nom for good reason: the candidate should be able to stand alone, and we should avoid the "oh, but he's such a wuvvly person" style of many RfA nominations. Bureaucratship is not a lollypop. The mere presence of the word "deserves" in the nomination made my skin crawl. For this reason, I think Francs2000 should have turned the nomination down, firmly but politely and done it the right way. Future non-self-noms can expect to be opposed by me unless there are transcending circumstances such as in this case. -Splashtalk 01:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for voicing your reservations, and should this nomination not work this time around, I will take that on board for the future. -- Francs2000 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for supporting, although that whole "wuvvy user" quote made me think as it as an insult to me, my intelligence, or something to that regard. I am very sorry that you feel that I shouldn't have made this request, by I was only trying to look out for the interested of Wikipedia - not myself, not even Francs2000's - but for the encyclopedia. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was referring to some RfAs in general as I indicated (and, honestly, that is the tone of some of them), not this RfB. As I said, though, the notion in the statement in your nomination that he "deserves" it seems off-kilter to me. I'm the only one complaining though, so it's probably not something you should take with too much seriousness. -Splashtalk 16:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I see no reason why Francs2000 should not become a bureaucrat.--ViolinGirl♪ 01:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. *drew 02:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. I've never seen him do a thing that deserves reproach, which is not something you could say for many admins these days. Grace Note 04:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Thumbelina
  56. Support gets my support Gryffindor 17:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Obviously very dedicated to the proliferation and success of the project. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 17:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Very experienced admin. jni 17:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose for the blinking header on your userpage ;) Support —Ilyanep (Talk) 18:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That was added by Talrias and as I use MSIE I can't see it blinking - if I get any more complaints from non-MSIE users I'll have to take their word for it and remove that feature...! -- Francs2000 15:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support for lack of reason to oppose Sceptre (Talk) 20:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Good for de aconomy. --Him
    Just what he said. --Jay (Reply) 01:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Long time contributor. Will use powers well and fairly. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. You appear well qualified. --Chris S. 09:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. While I'm sure Francs doesn't need it, I just have to support. It doesn't matter to me whether we need more bureaucrats or not, and there's no reason at all to think Francs will abuse the powers. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. I hope advancement is some compensation for having to live in Buckinghamshire ;-) David | Talk 17:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Solid contributor, we might not need more bureaucrats but I can't see any problem with having a surplus either --pgk(talk) 22:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, SqueakBox 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support --Admrboltz (T | C) 03:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose. Nothing personal. --Kefalonia 15:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind if I ask why then? -- Francs2000 15:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean "personal" as in Francs2000 the Wikipedian or Francs2000 the real-life person? If it's the latter I can understand, but if it's the former I can't help but wonder if you're opposing as a matter of principle of opposing RfBs. — JIP | Talk 22:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your own votes on this page are mostly not explained either, so I don't why you're reproching me for doing the same thing you do on this very page. Maybe you should first explain your own votes in detail before asking others to do so. (Nevertheless, I think it would be a good idea that a rule should be imposed, that everybody who votes support or oppose should provide an explanation of 2 full lines as a minimum.) Based on the little I know of you, you don't meet my standards for RFB. I don't trust your judgment, which is important for bureaucrauts. We do not need a minimum positive votes rule, as is discussed on the talk page, since the problem is rather the lack of oppose votes than the high numbers of support votes. But I changed to my vote to weak oppose. --Kefalonia 14:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not reproaching you for anything, I was asking a question, which you have now answered. Thank you. If asked I am more than willing to explain any of my comments anywhere, including on this page. -- Francs2000 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose ditto :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 15:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto my response, and that's not a personal comment either. I would genuinely like to know why. -- Francs2000 15:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll withdraw it since IMHO I think this is getting a little scewed due to the timing of the thing after the wheel war. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I expect a bureaucrat, among other things, to be a role model for other admins; his participation in the wheel-war over the existence of the WP:RFC/KM shortcut was the opposite of that. I don't even care which side he took—jumping in to undo the action of the previous admin after a dozen delete/undelete cycles is not exemplary behaviour. Owen× ☎ 03:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained here I was doing my duty as an admin: I saw what I thought at the time was an inappropriate redirection that, when I looked at the history, had been deleted five times before by different admins. I actually tried to stop the warring over that page by a delete/protect move, which worked: it made people stop and start discussing it. This has led to the page being listed on redirects for deletion, and further discussion. I was on nobody's side and I'm still not and I dislike the accusation that I was taking part in an edit war that I was actually trying to stop. -- Francs2000 20:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    " I dislike the accusation that I was taking part in an edit war that I was actually trying to stop" - Yah - I thought the same thing too, that was my reason for undeleting a second time. Didn't work too well, did it ;)? Heck, I imagine that's what the several other deleting admins thought too. That's not my reason for opposing though. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Graham, I hold you in great respect, and had a tough time making up my mind on your RfB. However, after over two years on WP you surely know that you can't stop an edit war by reverting, and you certainly can't stop a wheel war by exercising your admin powers and effectively taking a side. I know you meant well, but even your comment on WP:AN/I at the time made it clear that you didn't really believe your action would bring this delete/undelete feud to an end, and indeed it hasn't.
    I know you hate edit wars, and this action of yours was certainly out of character for you. I never accused you of willfully trying to prolong the wheel-war, but in all fairness, you'll have to admit that you should have known that no good can come of this. You are saying that your actions "worked" and lead to the page being listed on WP:RFD. I suggest to you that the listing there was done despite your out-of-process action, not due to it. Had you been the one to list it on TfD, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would gladly reconsider my vote if I see you actively working to mend the rift that resulted from that kerfuffle. Owen× ☎ 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well for what it's worth I hope an explanation of the series of events helps explain it better. I saw a single editor create a link that, looking at the deleted edit history, had been deleted five times before. I then took the delete/protect action not knowing that it was a wheel war and went back to RC Patrol. Three minutes later I saw someone contribute to a discussion on the page that I just deleted at the administrators' notice board, which I then went and read, and realised what was going on. By then it was too late to do anything about it: to restore the redirect would have been taking sides, to delete the page would have been taking sides. I didn't know what to do and decided to leave it to someone else to sort out. I think the stupidest thing I did was to leave that initial comment on the ANI. It was stupid, I regret it, I'm sorry and if you still oppose I'm not into fighting battles I can't win. -- Francs2000 23:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I don't see a point in raking you over the coals for that one mistake after you've recognized it and shown remorse. If Locke_Cole, who was a side to that dispute, is appeased by your explanation, I certainly won't stand in your way. Change to Support. Oh, and we do need more bureaucrats! :) Owen× ☎ 00:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per OwenX. I don't know how appropriate this is, but a simple response from Francs2000 indicating he understands it was an error and a promise that, as a bureaucrat, he'd never do it again, would convince me to withdraw my opposition. (Other than this recent issue, I've found nothing to indicate Francs2000 would be a bad bureaucrat). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    Having read through the discussion points at redirects for deletion I now realise that it is a very contentious issue and I made the wrong decision at the time. I was trying to stop what was turning into a very silly and embarrassing edit war. -- Francs2000 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good enough for me, and good luck! —Locke Cole • t • c 21:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. We do not need more bureaucrats. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Further qualifying my vote, as requested: IMHO, we do not need more bureaucrats, period. This is a vote to see if Francs2000 should be a bureaucrat. My vote is oppose, because I do not think anyone should be made a bureaucrat. This is not a judgement of Francs nor Quadell, who are fine editors, excellent contributors, and upstanding admins, both. My opposition is legitamate; of course, I am not the one making the decision - it will be one of our existing and numerous enough bureaucrats. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the qualification. -- Francs2000 12:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose — We do not need more admins nor bureaucrats that think the community or deletion processes are optional: And as per OwenX. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 09:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hate to butt in but I got a complaint about two of the oppose votes. One is from Jeffrey O. Gustafson, saying that we need no more bureaucrats. I don't see how that disqualifies Francs2000 from being a bureaucrat. Also the oppose vote above by Mistress Selina Kyle, I also don't see how not participating in ONE RFC, such as WP:RFC/KM disqualifies him either. Personally. I think that RFC's/RFA's and such are optional. — Moe ε 16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    in addition, was there ever an explanation of the first two oppose votes or did I just miss it. I'd be interested to know why you're opposing or if it really is for no reason. Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't that he didn't participate in the RFC, it was his involvement with WP:RFC/KM. (See OwenX's oppose above, check out the protect/delete history of WP:RFC/KM (the shortcut, not the target of the shortcut), and see WP:AN/I). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to butt in on your comment Francs, but what I saw at that redirect was nothing but a silly edit war between the parties involved. I don't think one edit war should matter in my opinion. I don't think Francs would ever edit in bad faith, much less about redirect. Regardless of that, Francs has already apologized for it under your, Locke Cole's, oppostion. And, to regards the oppostion by Kefalonia, RN (WhiteNight), or Jeffrey O. Gustafson, I don't get why you would oppose for no real reason at all. — Moe ε 21:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As OwenX says in his oppose, it sets a bad example to wheel war. For me, having him recognize it was a mistake was good enough to withdraw my opposition. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain which 'optional' processes you are referring to? -- Francs2000 20:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. This is nothing personal; it's just that I'm not convinced we need more. enochlau (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Still not convinced we need more bureaucrats, and have not seen a compelling reason to vote support. —Cleared as filed. 12:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

  • Can someone fix the date please? Thanks, →FireFox 18:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Sorry I'm not feeling too good today! -- Francs2000 18:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :) →FireFox 18:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was my fault, this was created long yesterday! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 18:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of the blurb at the top of the RfB section is that requests for cratship are only to be self-nominations. In the past, this has always been the case. Why has this suddenly been dropped? It's actually useful, since people will not hand out RfBs as rewards and the like, with people only RfBing when they actually think they themselves need it. Without commenting on the current candidates themselves, I'm tempted to oppose to stem the tide. -Splashtalk 19:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't really the "sunny" kid in class were you ; ). Seriously, I think opposing is pretty extreme, and some RfBs have been by other requests rather than self nomination. Please don't oppose. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want people to support a nomination you make, you might avoid making character judgements about them. There have been 2 prior non-self-noms excluding Quadell; both failed. I will support if I choose to, not because you implore me to. -Splashtalk 19:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about "character judgements" the "sunny kid" in class was a joke. Also, I respect your wishes to vote as you please. I am sorry if I offended you in some kind of way. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the guide says bureaucrat nominations are generally done only by request of the nominee (1). I pointed out above that I had wanted to do this myself but decided to hang about until someone else suggested it: if that decision means people will oppose then so be it, I'll just have to live with that and try again at another time. -- Francs2000 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, aside from comments by Splash, I see no indication of losing at this point, but I don't want to speak too soon. Again, I don't understand how the "sunny kid in class" comment angered you, but I am sorry, Splash. I even put the emoticon by the statement, and I thought it was obviously a joke. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:46, 2 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?
Yes I have. Current thought is that promotion to adminship should only be done if a candidate has received 80% consensus (i.e. 80% of the total number of votes being in support of the nomination) however there are occasions when the judgement of the bureaucrat is needed: where, for example, there is a suspicion of bad faith in the votes for either support or oppose. As someone who works with people for a living I am well aware how much effect one comment can have on the allegience of later voters when they make their decision: one may also have to take into account where the discussion has been advertised or the history of the voters with the nominee. At the end of the day, if in doubt, I can always find another bureaucrat and discuss it with them.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
I can only rely on my best judgement in such situations. I have never shied away from making unpopular decisions as an admin on Wikipedia and I'm not about to start now: if a decision to promote or not promote might be criticised then I have to deal with the aftermath sensitively with each user who comes to me with a criticism. I am assuming each individual case would be handled differently.
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?
Because all the feedback I get from committed users has been positive. In the (almost) two years that I have been an admin I have never been the subject of a Requests for Comment or an arbitration decision, I have never engaged in an edit war and when in doubt of my own decisions, I have always been willing to call for external help via the Administrators' noticeboard. And any users who know me well will know that I am never too proud to apologise if I am in error. At the end of the day my space is your space: feel free to look through my contributions to the community.
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?
I already discuss difficult admin decisions with other admins either at their talk pages or through the noticeboard: bureaucrat decisions are no different. Also I am not a regular user of IRC: I know how to use when I have a question that needs answering but I don't 'hang out' there and am unlikely to use it as a discussion forum if there are others available here. I am more than willing therefore to agree to the above conditions.
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?
I already do but I only tend to vote if I know the nominee or have come across them in the past. I am more than willing to add this page to those that I regularly visit on my rounds every time I log on to Wikipedia.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Francs2000&oldid=1080622473"