Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Deskana

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Deskana

Voice your opinion Final (22/18/5) ended 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Well, I've decided to take the plunge and nominate myself for bureaucratship. Having been an admin for over 8 months (promoted 1st May 2006) and an editor since June 2005, I think I've got enough experience to do a good job of it. I don't think there's any shortage of bcrats, as I see RfAs get removed quite quickly from here, but I would like to join "the team", as it were.

I've read a few of the old RfBs, but having not seen one for a while I'm kind of curious to see what the community expects to promote a bcrat. If this nomination doesn't pass, which I can easily see it not doing, then I will most likely reapply at a later date, not only having a better idea of what the community expects me to improve on in general, but specifically what is expected of me as a potential bcrat. I tried an editor review for come constructive criticism, but only got a few replies, and it was also vandalised on more than once occasion. I am very curious to see how this nomination turns out, partially because I would like the extra responsibility, and partially because I have not seen one in a while.

I will expand on why I feel I am suitable to be a bcrat in the below questions. Deskana (request backup) 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Deskana (request backup) 02:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic 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. The criteria seem to be around 75% upwards for a pass, with 80% upwards almost certainly being a pass. There have been RfAs that have passed with a lower percentage of support votes (using vote for lack of a better word). Typically in such cases it was because the person was a returning administrator who gave up the tools voluntarily, and wished to have them back. It makes sense to me that such RfAs would be "easier to pass" as it were, since the user has already proven themselves as an administrator.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. I would do what I think is right, pure and simple. I'm not a stranger to having to explain my actions, both on and off Wikipedia, and am always happy to explain my actions if the person is assuming good faith, and being civil and such like. I cannot see myself promoting an administrator where I think I could be majorly critised without discussing the matter with other bcrats first, and assessing the merits of both sides of the debate.

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 am well versed in all Wikipedia policies (though clearly other Wikipedians know better than me about certain policies, especially those regarding fair use law), and also importantly, the standards of the community. There are a fair few Wikipedians who look to me for guidance and second opinions on matters, and I do believe that I can be firm but fair with users who have acted inappropriately but genuinely do appear to be acting in good faith.

4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on 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. I do.

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 do. I reguarly read RfA, even though I do not vote on all RfAs. I also read the talk page, and contribute to discussions when I feel I have something to add.

6. Why should you be a bureaucrat? Make your publicity plug here. (Optional "question" by Titoxd^(?!?))

A. A hard question. I honestly do believe I am a fair administrator, and that I can be relied upon. But that does not state why I should be a bureaucrat. If I am to be totally honest, and risk sounding big headed, I feel I have something to add to Wikipedia. Something more to give. I feel that if I can make a contribution anything on Wikipedia, and the community is willing to trust me to do it, then I will. I am well aware that the current bcrats could manage just fine without me, as it is clearly evident that they have done so far! However, I do feel that if the community is willing to trust me with extra abilities, then I will accept them gladly and do the best I can to use them. If this does not pass, I do have plenty to keep me busy on Wikipedia, but I would like to make a contribution to all that I can. And to be a little less philosophical, I can help if a bureaucrat should have to have a temporary leave of absense or suchlike. I also am happy to participate in the renaming of users, something I see is practically untouched upon by the RfB questions.

7. I think it would be helpful to understand more of what exactly you intend to do with bureaucrat status. Do you intend to focus on anything in particular? Do you feel that there is a need for more help in requests for changing username or in granting bot status, for example? Cowman109^Talk 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A. I don't think there is a desperate need for more bureaucrats, no. There certainly seems to be much less of a need for an extra bureaucrat compared to the need for an extra administrator. From looking at it, the biggest "bcrat backlog" seems to be for changing usernames, which I would help with, but even then, the backlog is only two days, so can hardly be considered much of a backlog. I'd prefer not to say exactly what I would do as a bureaucrat, as I don't want to tie myself down to promises I'm not sure I can keep, as I think I did in my RfA. But I anticipate doing a mix of all bcrat jobs.

8. When I read question 4, I immediately remember Taxman's RfB promise, for which he was bashed and even asked to resign. Now, I am not asking you if you are going to resign for not respecting any of these points, but instead, what would make you resign from your bureaucratship? What would you consider a grave fault to resign, by yourself and with nobody asking you to do so, from your condition?

A. Another hard one. I was originally going to say "If I promoted a bad admin", but to be honest, I think it'd really only be as much my fault for pushing the button as the community for deciding that me pushing the button is a good idea. I guess I'd resign if I seemed to continually be promoting "bad admins", simply because that way I can stop myself from doing it more. I think it's much harder to do something wrong as a bureaucrat than it is as an admin, but if you do make a mistake while promoting an admin, you can potentially cause a lot of damage, even if it is all reversible in the end.

Question from Majorly (talk · contribs)

9. Have you ever nominated someone to become an administrator? If so, who and why, and if not, why not?

A. No, I have not, excluding my own self-nom for adminship. The main reason is because I'm either beaten to it by someone else, or the user in question is already an administrator. There is a user I do plan to nominate for adminship quite soon actually, I look forward to writing his nomination statement.

Excellent: I won't ask who, but why this person?

He need the tools, basically. He is always helping me with users that I try to mentor, he closes AfDs, and basically does administrator related tasks. He has never been uncivil or attacked anyone, and would be a model administrator. The tools would help him benefit Wikipedia and there is absolutely no evidence to show that he would even think of abusing them.

General comments

• Please add further questions as necessary to assess my suitability. --Deskana (request backup) 02:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Edit stats and admin log totals (as of two weeks ago) are on the discussion page. --Majorly (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Support

1. I have seen this user, flying around wikipedia like a hawk...always looking to help others :). Civil and calm. I support. Will wikipedia be a better place with Deskana as an b-crat, I say yes. Arjun 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Bureaucrat is no big deal for a responsible admin. Nothing can really be abused when everyone is looking. Let him be. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 03:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Michael 03:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. In the past I have had a great deal of interaction with this user, who is reliable, helpful, and reasonable. He will make a good 'crat. Yuser31415 04:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per nomination and reasons stated by Yuser31415. S.D. ¿п? § 12:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Decent experienced user, who will only do more good than harm if promoted. Good luck. --Majorly (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support: I think Dmcdevit has raised important concerns; however, the candidate's replies convince me to support. Heimstern Läufer 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support 'Crat abusive is very, very rare, however, I've seen more "teamwork" among 'crats than anyone else. He will be fine. Yanksox 02:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
9. I'd very much love to be able to oppose for misunderstanding consensus, and I should be able to in theory. However, I can't really bring myself to, seeing as RfA currently is a votecount. A 10% range in which you're allowed to use discretion (although that, frankly, seems to fluctuate depending on what the person who is up for bureaucratship says, and not towards their idea of the number) is close enough to a vote, if not really one. I'd much rather have a pragmatic bureaucrat who doesn't quite get the ideal that consensus rules instead of votecount, than an idealistic bureaucrat who doesn't quite get that you can't just start doing things how they ideally should be done. -Amark moo! 05:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Knows how to apply consensus in RfA's. Reasonable, calm. Capable to do the job. I trust this user. --Ligulem 09:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. While I've had occasion to disagree with Deskana on content or interpretations of guidelines here and there, I've always found him to be sincere and trustworthy. I think Deskana would be a fine b'crat. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
12. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 10:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Support A fine editor, who will unquestionably strengthen our (already excellent!) team of bureaucrats.--Runcorn 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong Support Reasons: There are only 10 Active_bureaucrats. What harm will be done by making the list 11? I also support his philosophy: "I grow more and more rouge by the day. I refer less to policy and more to preventing damage to the encyclopedia and improving it by any means necessary.". Peace & Good luck. --Parker007 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support-per good admin.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support I believe Deskana has good diplomacy skills and is his commitment really in question - Bureaucratship isn't miss world - you just get to promote admins - what else should you do with the 'gravitas of high office'? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support He is a very good admin and has shown high levels of diplomacy skills as well. The added responsibilities given to him would only benefit this project further and not hinder it. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Doesn't look like Deskana will become a 'crat at this stage but I trust this user's judgement and don't think it would be a mistake to promote so I'm supporting anyway. James086Talk 09:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Bucketsofg 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Superb admin - will surely be a good bureaucrat.--R613vlu 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support A hard working and friendly admin. Go for it. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 10:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Terence Ong 15:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Deskana seems to have forgotten that the criteria for promotion include, indeed is, consensus, and has failed to even mention the word (or a related concept) at all. I'm concerned about talk of votes and numerical values when I'm looking for a bureaucrat whose judgment I can trust in discretionary matters, not one with a functioning calculator. (Statements like "using vote for lack of a better word" have the ring of lip service when the word vote is indeed being used to describe numerical values, and not a "better" concept.) I'm not ready to support at this time. Dmcdevit·t 07:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah... That's sort of what I was running on, but in retrospect, my specific position was fatally flawed. The answer to Q2 would suggest a level of good judgement to me. Just my two cents. Grandmasterka 08:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't want to come across as harassing opposers, as that is totally not my intention, but I do realise that ultimately it is not me that is promoting the administrators, but the community. The idea of consensus is what let those RfAs I mentioned pass with less than the typical 75%. RfA is first and foremost a consensus building activity, and it is a bcrat's job to interpret that consensus, similar to how admins interpret XfDs. I do honestly believe, though, that promoting below 75% support would be a bad idea in almost all situations, as that seems to be the accepted standard. If you are opposing me for that reason, then that is fair enough. --Deskana (request backup) 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't mind at all your reponding; it's what I intended (this is a discussion, not a secret ballot). I like when you say "similar to how admins interpret XfDs," but I'm still concerned by the qualification that it must reach a numerical standard, which seems contradictory. Is that how you decide an AFD, by counting votes? Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   No, but that does appear to be how the vast majority of RfAs are handled, and how the community as a whole accepts the promotion process. --Deskana (request backup) 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'm concerned about the answer to question 1(changed to support). It is my underestanding (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), that an admin who gives up their adminship voluntarily may simply request their adminship back without the need for an RFA. However an admin who is desysopped or who has given up their adminship 'under a cloud', ie. imminent or ongoing ArbCom proceedings or other such unsavoury events, should seek resyssoping through an RFA. The candidate does not make it clear why this should be an 'easier pass'. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   The case I was referring to, specifically, was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2, which passed with approximately 71% support, lower than the standard threshold. If I remember correctly, the closing bureaucrat said that the RfA should be subject to lower standards due to the fact that it was more of a reconfirmation than an original request. I think you're right, that a user can just request the tools back, but evidently Sean Black felt reconfirmation from the community was appropriate. --Deskana (request backup) 15:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for your response; I'm still not clear on the why though. Why should a 'reconfirmation' require less consensus? Whether or not they've displayed good adminship skills in the past will be reflected in the response at RFA from the community, I don't see the argument for an 'easier pass'. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   The idea is that RfA is not about votes and counting percentages, but about consensus. It's about the strength of the argument, rather than saying "You're below 75%, fail!". Cyde said in Sean Black's case, it was because nobody could demonstrate he would misuse the tools [1]. RfA is primarily based upon counting support/oppose votes nowadays, because it works (whereas it wouldn't in AfD), but sticking to that rigidly detracts from the idea of consensus. Why should we begrudge a man 4% if we know he can do good with the tools, and has proven himself in the past? This is my opinion on the matter. Does this explain it, or is further clarification required? --Deskana (request backup) 15:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'm afraid I'm still confused. When asked "What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?", you answer "The criteria seem to be around 75% upwards for a pass, with 80% upwards almost certainly being a pass", no mention of consensus and implicitly that "consensus is a vote. Seems muddled to me, sorry for labouring this but what then are the parameters of your flexibility is 4% the max or more? When is the vote irrelevant and the weight of argument persuasive? How will you decide this? --Mcginnly | Natter 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I can't anticipate promoting outside of the standard 75% upwards range, but I can't see the future either, so may one day feel the need to. Ultimately it is what the community decides, not what I decide, but it'd be up to me to interpret what the community thinks. If I felt the need to stray from the 75% upwards rule, I would discuss the matter with other bcrats on WP:BN and debate potential merits and drawbacks. I wouldn't say any vote is "irrelevant", but some can be discounted if they are violations of WP:POINT, or added by banned or blocked users. --Deskana (request backup) 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I appreciate you can't see into the future, so with reference to some past, controversial promotions, which arguments made at RFA do you feel persuaded bureaucrats to promote Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 with 61%?--Mcginnly | Natter 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Note: User was blocked and this discussion was continued on the user's talk page. --Deskana (request backup) 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Strongly Oppose — Fails my criteria, badly!: Fair use policing, lack of understanding of [community] consensus (reference Dmcdevit), lack of judgement in protecting pages, and this scares me User:Deskana#Philosophy on Wikipedia (and I quote: "I grow more and more rouge by the day. I refer less to policy and more to preventing damage to the encyclopedia [sic] and improving it by any means necessary.") and finally lack of contributions to the encyclopaedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Can you please explain what you mean by "fair use policing" and explain my "lack of judgement in protecting pages"? The links you provided did not explain what you meant very well. --Deskana (request backup) 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Matthew, how do lack of contributions to the encyclopedia have an effect on this user's judgment as a potential bureaucrat? Nishkid64 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   While I see no reason to explain my oppose (I understand it fine..:-\) I'll tell you why contributions matter: because we are building an encyclopaedia here, and I find actual contributions show commitment as well. I see no reason why getting power means people should stop contributing etc. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose - You have already spent too much time arguing with your opposers. You should know that there is a Chinese proverb that says "trying to save a little only to lose a lot" - and this is exactly what you have been doing. Scobell302 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Erm... where, exactly, has Deskana argued? RfAs and RfBs are helpful for obtaining community consensus and obtaining feedback on "how we're doing." If Deskana doesn't understand what a particular complaint is (I had the same problem trying to understand Matthew Fenton's, in particular), then how can he improve as a Wikipedian? Deskana was not trying to change their votes, he was trying to understand what to change. The fact that you're opposing due to discussion is astounding to me. —bbatsell ¿? 21:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I agree with Bbatsell and I'm really sorry my 'grilling' of the candidate should produce such an opposition. For me, how a Bureaucrat judges consensus is of primary importance; and I needed an exchange of views to get a feel for that. I thought Deskana handled himself/herself quite well, but would like to hear his/her opinion regarding one of the more contentious decisions bureaucrats have been asked to make in recent times before changing my vote. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose The candidate displays neither a definite need for b'cratship, per Cowman; nor a thorough understanding of consensus, per Dmcdevit; nor the proper temperament, per Matthew Fenton and the candidate's own userpage. I like Deskana, personally, but the arguments presented are overwhelming on several different points. Xoloz 19:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Scobell302 and Xoloz. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose Wikipedia is much more than you seem to think it is. We're not a big policy wank, and we're not a bunch of number crunchers. If RFA were at all about the numbers, I'd just write a bot for it and make all Bcrats obsolte. Really, you show a disconcerting lack of understanding of what a bureacrat is, which leads me to think you would not be suited to be a bureaucrat. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 11:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   You should write a bot for it. Pretending that votes aren't votes is silly, and it only creates bad feeling when a bureaucrat promotes someone who didn't get enough votes but the bureaucrat personally felt should have the bit. Grace Note 23:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Well, the day AI exists that can discount trolling (which does happen in rfa) from valid concerns then it is time to look into bot-o-mating 'crats. Until that day exists, that is one of the few roles that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell we should be using a bot. -- Tawker 19:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Strongly Oppose Deskana's right, there is no desperate need for more bureaucrats. VERY sorry answer to Question #7. Diez2 16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose, basically for reasons outlined by the neutrals. Ideally, a crat candidate would identify a need that is not being filled with the current corps of bureaucrats and make a convincing case as why they are the best person to meet that need. This nom has the tone of "Here I am, so why not?" Without any prejudice whatsoever towards Deskana, who I've seen doing fine work around the wiki, I don't see the focus that I would like in a candidacy for crathood. (If the crats state that they would more colleagues are needed, I would of course be willing to come back and examine the candidate's procedural/policy stances in depth.) - BanyanTree 20:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose i don't see a b-crat at this time. Geo. 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose. No need for more b'crats, doesn't really have a plan for what to do with the tools. Also your lack of edit summaries in recent contributions is rather embarrassing; that's something people would oppose an RfA for. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose per several of the opposers above... I REALLY find THIS scary... Bcrats should be upholding policy to the letter... not WP:IARing every decision.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    I've removed it from my userpage now. I didn't expect it to scare people. I've never invoked IAR and ever had anyone debate my decision. Infact, I don't actually recall ever invoking IAR, but I could be wrong about that. I can understand why people find it scary. --Deskana (request backup) 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    Well its good you removed it... but I think folks should be made aware of what content was removed My oppose still stands.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    Although my vote is "Oppose" but I think that your reason to oppose him is still unfair. The content in the user page can't say everything and it shouldn't be considered a criterion to judge his potential of becoming a bcrat. I myself find it little to no "scary", it's just normal stand-point and I find no fault in it. "Actions speak louder than words". The important thing is not what he writes in his userpage but what he does. Deskana behaves decorously and rightly, as far as I know. Thus your reason to oppose him is irrelevant. Causesobad --> Talk) 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    Fair enough. --Deskana (request backup) 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

12. Strongly opposeDeskana seems to be running for bureaucratship simply because she/he can, which does not suffice in my opinion. Deskana, your campaign is going downhill fast. Cut your losses now and save face.Rory for suomi 07:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    A bit melodramatic, don't you think? Milto LOL pia 10:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose. but I would like to join "the team", as it were - not really a fan of this. Privileges should be dispersed when needed to people who are trustworthy and technically competent in using them, not as a reward or symbol of status. Milto LOL pia 10:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose: "I'd prefer not to say exactly what I would do as a bureaucrat, as I don't want to tie myself down to promises I'm not sure I can keep, as I think I did in my RfA." I don't like this type of answer. A good admin, but not good enough to be a bcrat. Causesobad --> Talk) 16:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Q1. Everybody should have the same standards, whether they're ex-admins or not. Just H 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Miltopia.--Osidge 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Strongly oppose. IAR means "use your noggin" not "do whatever you want". And I entirely disagree with your answer to Q1 and will oppose any candidate who believes that what happened with editors such as Carnildo was right. If we disapprove a candidate, you do too. You're judging our approval, nothing else.Grace Note 05:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose on lack of need; somewhat weak and generally vague answers; lack of consistency on the responsibilty of the role (seems to be arguing on the one hand that a BC need commit to no particular set of practices and just use their best judgement, but that it's the community's fault, not his, for bad outcomes of the process); and the general undesirability of "Rouge bureaucrats". Alai 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm leaning towards support, but the candidate does not seem to have much need or plans as to what they intend to do with bureaucrat status. Some sort of ideas would be helpful. Bureaucratship is not a trophy, and I am getting the feeling that the candidate feels that it is some sort of award. Cowman109^Talk 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
2. I must agree with Cowman; I'm left a little nonplussed at this RfB. Deskana seems to be simply applying to be a bureaucrat just because he (?) can, which would certainly not be a good reason to do so. That makes me hesitant to support. —Cuiviénen 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
3. As User:Cowman109 Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I can assure you that is not his intention. Yuser31415 04:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral. It's true that no one has applied in a long time, but there may be reasons for that. That in itself is not a reason to apply. Chick Bowen 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Actually we've had a few recently, but none which passed :) --Majorly (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Neutral I am concerned, as per User:MatthewFenton's comment that there are a lack of recent contributions to the enyclopaedia. Looking at the last 50 main namespace edits, they are all admin sorts of things - eg reversions. Since we are building an encyclopaedia, I would like all admins and bureaucrats to have a focus on actively contributing as well as administration. I think it provides a focus for the administration if you contribute, you understand better the purpose of the project, not just applying rules for their own sake and/or because you have the power to do so. This applies no matter how well you understand the rules because true understanding of the purpose in my mind can only come from contributing to the purpose.--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   You're right, we're building an encyclopedia. However, if I didn't spend my time blocking vandals or doing other administrator related tasks, then other people that spend their time building the encyclopedia by writing articles would have their efforts seriously hindered, by having to repeatedly revert vandals and put up with trolls. I see myself as helping them rather than doing it myself, so I do honestly believe I do help build the encyclopedia. --Deskana (request backup) 09:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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.