Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Deskana 2

Deskana

Voice your opinion (talk page) (18/0/0); Scheduled to end 21:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Well, this is my second nomination for bureaucratship of myself (first is Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Deskana). I'd been thinking about nominating myself again in the past few days, and have decided that I would do it now.

Personally, I feel Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats. Most of the bcrat stuff is done by Cecropia (who might I add, was only recently re-elected as a bureaucrat), and there is a backlog at WP:CHU. The fact that Cecropia now does most of the bcrat stuff doesn't necessarily mean that had Cecropia not been elected we would be stuck without active bureaucrats, but it does make me wonder.

The job of a bureaucrat (as far as RfA is concerned) is interpreting consensus. Basically asking yourself the question "Does the community here indicate that promotion is a good idea?". It's clear there is a correlation between percentage support and pass rate, and to say that is a fact. To say "RfA is a vote" is a point of dispute. Personally, I believe it is safe to say that RfA isn't a vote, because there have been RfAs that have failed with higher support rates than RfAs that have passed. Generally, the community makes good decisions on who to promote to admin, and even when admins go crazy and eventually get themselves desysopped that doesn't mean they made a bad choice.

What's changed since my last nomination for bureaucratship? In matters unrelated to bureaucratship, I feel I've become more mature with regards to Wikipedia. I don't think anyone ever stops learning. Secondly, from watching RfAs and how they go, I feel I understand bureaucratship more. In my last nomination people were concerned that I didn't understand consensus, and while I believe that I did then, I certainly understand it more now. It's clear to me that it isn't the bureaucrat who promotes the admin, it's the community. The bureaucrat just pushes the button.

As a bureaucrat I would be active in closing RfAs, changing usernames, and discussing RfAs where the consensus is not clear. I would add WP:RFBOT to my watchlist to make sure there is never a backlog there, either.

What motivated me to nominate myself for bureaucratship, and why now? I've been admin for 1 year, 2 months and 2 days (according to a box on my userpage), and have been a Wikipedian for over two years. I feel I have a good knowledge the way Wikipedia works from my time here, and given the fact that I believe we need more bureaucrats, I wish to serve Wikipedia in this manner. I also chose now because there is a backlog at WP:CHU and we only seem to have one active crat at RfA, and it has been over five months since my last nomination, and I feel I understand Wikipedia well enough now to serve in this manner.

Oh, and I will probably respond to opposes if their meaning is unclear or I have something to say on the matter. In RfAs and RfBs (including my last RfB) this was interpreted as arguing with opposers. I assure you I am not arguing, but attempting to understand their criticism better. Please ask any questions you want answering. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

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. Based upon button pushing by bureaucrats and what the almost all of the community deems acceptable without dispute, 75+% is a consensus to promote, and 70-% support has no consensus to promote. What I mean is that very few people will complain if someone is promoted with over 75% support or not promoted with under 70% support. There have been exceptions to this rule where the bureaucrats felt that a consensus had been reached to promote with less support than is typical of an RfA.

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

A. Discussion with the community, and with other bureaucrats. Given that it's easier to promote than it is to desysop, it doesn't hurt to err on the side of caution and discuss the matter more with the other bureaucrats after the request has ended to make sure that promoting isn't a mistake, if I feel it would be.

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. In my duties as an admin, I believe I am fair. I keep always try to keep my cool and act fairly to users I have had disagreements with, and try to put the past behind me. I have attempted to help users who I have previously had disagreements with in the past, even when they don't believe in me as an administrator. I try to steer clear of conflicts of interest so promise not to take actions that may be viewed as such.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Yes, I do.

Question 5 from Haukur: Are you familiar with the RFA process of the German Wikipedia? Do you think that system has any advantages over the one currently used over here? As a cheat sheet here is a short description of German RFA procedures, here is the German RFA page and here is a Google translation of it Haukur 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a straight vote with a 66.7% majority required to pass, from what I've heard. The translation seems to confirm this. Well, that system has its advantages. For a start, there will probably be less borderline cases than we have here. Promotion or no promotion would be clear cut in every case. I think it's a good system, primarily because its clear cut and cuts out on arguments that get people upset and worked up. However, our system is good too. True, there are a few cases where I disagree with the outcome here, but I think the system works. I can understand why people were outraged at the Danny promotion, given it falling below the support percentage people typically see here, but since his re-promotion he's been a good admin, from what I can tell. Both systems have merits, but to be honest, I prefer ours. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 22:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a prompt answer. I agree with you that having a clear cut threshhold for promotion reduces acrimony and the perception of unfairness. Haukur 23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from bibliomaniac15

Q: What are your personal criteria for an RFA candidate? bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A: You mean what makes me vote support? I don't have any. It's generally just how I feel about the person. "x edits distributed about n namespaces" personally means nothing to me. Generally more edits = responsible admin, but I don't like to use that standard (example). If I've intereacted with them before then I generally vote (term used for lack of a better one, I don't like "!vote") on my experience with them. For example, I voted support on User:Walton_monarchist89's RfA, because I was impressed at how he conducted himself here. Incidentally, he held the complete opposite opinion of me. I'm glad I supported him, anyway.

General comments

• See Deskana's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support I would have opposed for misspelling "consensus", but I'm not that mean. Anyway, Deskana's a good admin, and I trust him with the bureaucratic tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

   Ooops! I fixed that. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 21:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Support I've seen you around and you seem like a good candidate. I can't find any reason to criticize you and you seem to be a fair admin from my encounters :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Support - Deskana has been doing a good job and I expect him to be able to handle the job and tasks of a crat very well..Good luck...--Cometstyles 22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Very strong support All my interactions with Deskana have been positive. He is a very fair and calm administrator. Acalamari 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Support No reason not to. --Banana 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Demonstrated history of responsible admin actions. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. User can be trusted. Andre (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. Three good candidates in three hours! Bureaucracy for everyone! Bucketsofg 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Firm support and best of luck. Deskana has the right attitude. Gracenotes^T § 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Support No problems here. DarthGriz98 23:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Won't promote Willy on Wheels to admin. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Support per the power of three. No problems here. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 23:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Trustworthy, experienced and responsible user. Húsönd 00:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. Trustworthy and responsible. You'd think that a candidate banned from a Battlefield server for swearing would be a lot worse. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    Since I told you that, I got banned from another one for swearing too. :-p --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    'Ey, who the bloody fuck bans people fer a few goddamn curses?! Those yellow brats should be damn grateful they didn't get their ears right fucked by the slimy tongue of some of the bastards I know! --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ

15. Support. No question about it, even tho he seems slightly upside down lately! ;) Phaedriel - 00:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Even though I haven't seen this user around, I believe that they can handle the tools or else 15 users wouldn't have already supported him. —« ANIMUM » 00:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Support In the few times I've talked to Deskana, I've felt far more comfortable that s/he knew what they were doing than I do with a lot of other admins. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
18. Definitely. Michaelas¹⁰ 00:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral