Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Useight 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Oppose: comment
RMHED (talk | contribs)
15,716 edits
Line 116: Line 116:
#'''Oppose''' You're too obsessed with Wikipedia to allow rational thought. [[user:RMHED|<font style="color:#4682b4">'''Garibaldi Baconfat'''</font>]] 23:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' You're too obsessed with Wikipedia to allow rational thought. [[user:RMHED|<font style="color:#4682b4">'''Garibaldi Baconfat'''</font>]] 23:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
#:This rationale for opposing is offensive and so blatantly lacks merit that I am considering striking it as trollish in nature. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
#:This rationale for opposing is offensive and so blatantly lacks merit that I am considering striking it as trollish in nature. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
#::Good for you Bradley. Though what you find offensive seems very subjective as far as Wikipedia is concerned. [[user:RMHED|<font style="color:#4682b4">'''Garibaldi Baconfat'''</font>]] 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 23:45, 18 January 2010

Useight

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (53/1/1); Scheduled to end 18:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Useight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Well, here I am again. I had three RFAs, so three RFBs seems consistent. Hopefully the logical extension ends there and they won't be followed by three RFCs. Light humor aside, I'm presenting myself again for public scrutiny. As way of introduction for those unfamiliar with me, I've been around since 2006 and became an admin in 2007. My editing has been largely WikiGnomish and mostly in the realms of video games and the NFL. As for admin-work, I keep mostly to CSD, with a little AIV and UAA mixed in. I haven't been extraordinarily active in those three areas for a bit now; I've been working on what I call my NFL project in which I made hundreds of articles and templates and standardized literally thousands of articles. It took me practically forever, but when I pumped my fist with a triumphant, "Yes!" when I made this edit, my wife nearly jumped out of her socks. Anyway, now that that is over, I intend to return to my activity at CSD and AIV, along with working on the much smaller tasks I've made for myself at User:Useight/Objectives.

Anyway, as for bureaucratship, you'll see that this is my third time at this endeavor. The previous two are dated June 2008 and December 2008. The first garnered opposition that was mostly due to my tenure as an administrator, so I'll focus on the second one instead. In that RFB, the opposition was nearly exclusively in regards to bots. As one who likes to constantly improve himself, I set out to find out what it was that made bots so great. I asked some questions of some BAG members and did some exploring on my own. I pretty much started with WP:BOTS, moved on to the Bot Policy, and added WP:BRFA to my watchlist. I decided to take a close look at the top 100 bots (by edit count) based on this list. I looked over the tasks of those 100 bots; along with their talk pages; approval page, if I could find it; and FAQs and any other sort of informative-looking links on the bots' userpages.

So what did I learn from that? Let me just say that I had no idea bots were doing so much stuff around here. They're running around replacing templates, fixing citations, reverting vandalism, updating wikilinks, all kinds of formatting fixing; I could go on. Before discovering that list, I wouldn't have guessed that there were hundreds upon hundreds of bots helping out. Now, you're not going to hear me shouting that bots are the best thing since sliced bread, but, wow, they are extremely useful. I couldn't write one myself, I can barely manage some procedural-based C++, but it turns out that I'm glad we have a bunch of bot-writers because we only have one Rich Farmbrough.

But now I've gone on far longer than I originally intended. I'll just briefly mention why I'm again requesting bureaucratship. Simply put, I'm here to help. I've always said that I have two purposes here: 1) To improve the encyclopedia; and 2) To help others improve the encyclopedia. This request is an extension of the latter. I intend to help out at WP:CHU, a place I clerk frequently. Of course, I'd also be there at SUL and USURP; those two have fewer requests, and, ergo, I don't clerk there as often, but I'm familiar with their workings. I'm also offering my services to close RFXs. I'm a regular at WT:RFA, although not as much lately due to my focus on my aforementioned NFL project. I've still been an avid reader there, despite my comments being a bit sparse. The other area in which bureaucrats work, bots, won't be the first thing I think of when my head pops off the pillow, but I'll be available to help if needed. Useight (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Indeed, I keep up with discussions regarding promotion practices. WT:RFA is a favorite reading of mine. I don't always jump in on debates, but it's always an interesting read. As for the second part of this question, the criteria for promotion is consensus. Consensus cannot strictly be limited to a percentage support, but there is indeed a range that typically is indicative of a consensus to promote. In RFAs, that range is usually considered to be the 70-75% window. The corresponding "discretionary area" for RFBs has been a bit of topic for discussion as of late. It is more or less, though, thought to be hovering around 85%.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Being a conservative individual, I would ease into the role of bureaucrat. I'd start with closing clear cut nominations, and, as I became comfortable, I'd move into these borderline cases. Obviously I'd read the entire RFX closely, taking my time weighing the situation and gauging whether a consensus exists. I would tend to err on the side of caution; I have a conservative nature. When performing the close of such a contentious nomination, I would be sure to include a paragraph detailing my thought process and explanation of my interpretation of the consensus, or the lack thereof.
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've had quite a bit of experience over the past few years collaborating with many different editors. Throughout this time, I believe I've exhibited a neutral point of view and demonstrated a strong working knowledge of policy. I've done a little mediation of minor spats between two parties and I believe I've been a fair, impartial judge. I do my best to maintain amiable and very civil relationships between myself and other editors, as I believe this is key for meaningful collaboration.
Optional additional questions from Phantomsteve
4. If a candidate self-nominates themself on an RfA, which is then closed by an admin/'crat as WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, yet insists that they want the RfA open for the full 7 days:
a. under which circumstances would you consider re-opening the RfA?
A It wouldn't be very common for me to re-open a SNOW-ed RFA. Obviously, the answer to this (and part B) would be on a case-by-case basis, but I would probably only consider re-opening if I thought it was SNOW-ed (or NOTNOW-ed) way too early as per a subjective sort of ratio to the editor's experience and/or the types of opposes the RFA had garnered. For example, if it was SNOW-ed after three opposes per lack of experience since the candidate only had six edits, then no, I'd leave it closed. If it was SNOW-ed after three opposes per, say, being a self-nom, and the candidate had 6,000 edits, then I'd be much more likely to re-open it. The default would be to leave it closed, as those who close RFAs early make a good call on that nearly every time; it'd have to be a more unusual circumstance for me to re-open, generally based on the editor's experience. If they've been around awhile, they're less likely to feel bitten when the opposes pile on, and with said experience, they'll quite probably withdraw it themselves after a little more time has passed. A recent example would be this request, followed by withdrawal the next day.
b. under which circumstances would you not consider re-opening the RfA?
A I believe I answered this question in part A.
5. As an admin, you would certainly have mistakes, just as all editors do (and I'm sure we'll find out some in the discussion here!). What mistakes in your admin career would you say you have learnt most from, and what lesson(s) did you learn? (If you want to provide diffs showing "what I was like before" and "what I am like now" then you are most welcome to do so!)
A There have been times that I've errantly jumped in on conversations before taking the time to make sure I understand everyone's angles. One example I dug up was this one. There are probably other times, but that one was the first to come to mind. To prevent this sort of thing from recurring, I now try to ensure that I have fully assessed the situation before offering advice, mediation, or interpretation.
A non-Rfx related question from Phantomsteve
6. As mentioned at this discussion, Rfx closure is usually a role which most 'crats do not have to do that often. What can you offer with regard to renaming at WP:CHU and Bot approval at WP:BRFA, which is where is more work which can be done by a 'crat?
A I'm very experienced at CHU. According to this tool, I've logged over 600 edits there. I'm familiar with the inner workings there; I've seen 'crats accept and decline hundreds of requests, and the associated reasons for doing so. I'm there multiple times daily and there's usually a request or two, or six sometimes, that I'd be able to complete. As for BRFA, there are usually a few open requests pending. Since I'm at my computer during a vast majority of my free time (and whenever I can snag a few minutes at work), I'd be available for adding the +bot flag (which is a more important task than I had originally thought; the bot will be improving a (likely) substantial number of pages, which it can't do until the account has the flag to avoid flooding the recent changes). So, what I'm trying to say is that I can offer a considerable amount of availability for helping in these two areas.
Additional questions from Keepscases
7. What would you do if you came across a user named Useihgt who has been on the site for two weeks and is making perfectly good contributions?
A: Hmm, that'd be an interesting circumstance. I know there is a bit of software in place that prevents new usernames from being too close to existing usernames. That particular username would quite possibly be too close and the user requesting it would have to go through WP:ACC to get it, at which point I don't think that request would be granted. But in the unlikely event that this scenario plays out, I'd point Useihgt to Wikipedia:IU#Similar_usernames, "You must not use a username that could easily be confused with that of an active contributor" and request that they either change their username via CHU or put some sort of disambig on their userpage and talk page to differentiate them from me. If they chose the latter (or did neither), I would put a disambig on my pages. Note, though, that I wouldn't attempt further to coerce them into a name change; as long as they're contributing positively and not actively attempting to impersonate me, I don't mind the similarity.
8. Do you believe Niggardly Joe is an appropriate user name? Why or why not?
A: Yes, it is acceptable, but it is cutting it close. "Niggardly" is defined as stingy or miserly and is completely unrelated to the similar-sounding derogatory racial term. As an interesting tidbit, we a couple users with the names of NiggardlyNorm and NiggardlyNed.

General comments

RfBs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Useight before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. We need more crats at CHU. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I supported all three of Useight's RfAs and both of his RfBs, so I am pleased to give him my support for the sixth time. Useight's been a fine admin: he's kind and polite to everyone, keeps a cool head, and has plenty of experience, so I'm sure he'll be a fine bureaucrat. Acalamari 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Would be a polite crat, while not making any rash decisions. The Arbiter★★★ 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support - As I've said before, I always felt that Useight was always on the track to cratship. When it comes to RfX, he's comments are consistently level-headed, even if slightly taciturn. I have no doubt that he'd be a fair judge of consensus. CHU could always use more help, and I'm happy to see that he's familiarized himself with BAG. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very well qualified. Always level-headed, considerate, and clueful - the ideal candidate. ceranthor 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per obvious knowledge and ability to use that knowledge positively. Şłџğģő 20:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support - Useight is one of the good eggs here. The work he put in to address and understand the comments of his second RFB's opposers flat-out amazes me. Good luck, my friend. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I can't see any reason to oppose. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - We could seriously use you as a crat. smithers - talk 21:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Useight is a trustworthy user who has, over a long period of time, improved a lot of articles and garnered a lot of respect as an administrator. His comments at WT:RfA are insightful and characteristic of the type of user I'd support for bureaucratship. He has extensive experience clerking at WP:CHU and shows a through knowledge of the policies at that page. It seems that he is sufficiently qualified to fill the role of bureaucat at WP:BRFA as well. I think he would be an asset to the bureaucrats in general, particularly in 'crat-chats, where his ability to reason thoughtfully would be valuable. Useight's answers to the questions posed thus far also inspire confidence. Here's hoping the third time's the charm. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Outstanding track both as an admin and User and has improved since the previous RFB.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Outstanding admin, who will be an outstanding crat, no concerns and he has the right attitude. RP459 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Committed, competent, in it for the long haul. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sure. GwenNovak talk to my master 23:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support You'll be fine. More good 'crats are always needed; as the saying goes, "Many hands make light work." Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, Useight is a good user and will be a fine crat. I trust his judgement. GlassCobra 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - trustworthy and experienced user, willing to work in an underserved area. Probably should have passed last time around. Robofish (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 03:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. He has learned well since the time I met him. bibliomaniac15 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support happily support the trustworthy admin to gain the extra tools.---Caspian blue 05:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. —Dark 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. This is backlogged - we need more crats to help there. Pmlineditor ∞ 06:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I see no reason for not supporting this candidate, as they appear to be trustworthy and capable. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Epbr123 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No concerns at all. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Previous RfB problems appear quite well addressed, I see no issues. Hobit (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - I supported previously the first time round. Now that most earlier concerns have been addressed I have no reason not to support again. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support Capable, commons sense, an oldie, and WOW on the NFL edits. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 18:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Not enough crats currently. -Dougste... uh, Valley2city‽ 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Useight is an excellent admin, and I'm confident that he will make an excellent 'crat.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. If they're wanting to work at WP:CHU, I'd say yes. Q4 gives me confidence in them as well. ConCompS talk review 19:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Exemplary candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Shows ability to learn and grow as a Wikipedian, and has progressed steadily. I believe community trust has been earned. This 3rd RfB will hopefully do the trick. Jusdafax 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Yes. As Hobit says, any previous issues seem well addressed, and I think Useight would be a very helpful addition to the 'crat crew. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Don't see any problems that I'm aware of. Schfifty3 01:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support Useight would make an outstanding crat. The Thing Vandalize me 02:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support upstateNYer 03:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. It's impressive to see someone take on criticism and learn from it as you have, rather than simply waiting a few months and trying again without addressing the issues. You're obviously a sound contributor and I'm sure that having a few extra tools won;t hurt that! Third time's the charm hopefully. HJMitchell You rang? 03:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support No concerns about this user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. May as well. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Long time coming. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  13:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support From everything I have seen from him, I think he would be a fine addition to the crat ranks and will do just fine. He has shown the right mind for the task, being able to reflect calmly on what people criticized in his last request and to deal with everyone patiently and friendly - and with a huge amount of WP:CLUE. Regards SoWhy 14:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Appears to have all the necessary experience and level-headedness to do this job. Polargeo (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Yep. –xenotalk 16:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Fully qualified for this role. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Should do well - no concerns. AlexiusHoratius 17:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. As before. Nathan T 18:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. No reservations; the candidate is a quality administrator whose cratship would be a net positive for the project. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. No problems that I can see. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Keepscases (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I see no reason not too. The fact that there has been 50 Supports and not a single Oppose is also a major plus.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I've noticed Useight, and he appears to be a great editor. The project definitely needs more sysops and crats like Useight as it expands. mynameinc (t|c) 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose You're too obsessed with Wikipedia to allow rational thought. Garibaldi Baconfat 23:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This rationale for opposing is offensive and so blatantly lacks merit that I am considering striking it as trollish in nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good for you Bradley. Though what you find offensive seems very subjective as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Garibaldi Baconfat 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral Useight would seem to for some reason put using Huggle/AWB in the category of 'acceptable vices', along with drinking alcohol. From his talk page a couple of days ago: "Huggle or AWB, something that used to rub me the wrong way, but now I don't mind it too much as long as it's not really excessive". NO. There are quite literaly vandals at the gates, people should be using Huggle more not less! Sure using Huggle a lot does not make you qualified for adminship in and of itself, but it does not hurt. Does the statement "[fighting vandalism in a highly effective manner] used to rub me the wrong way, but now I don't mind it too much as long as it's not really excessive" make sense? I don't think so. Useight's not a bad admin, he does good work and is a pretty cool guy too boot. But as the first view of his on adminship that I found I disagree with fundamentaly, I cannot support. Icewedge (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In context, I'm not a huge fan of admin candidates' contribs being solely comprised of automated edits, I prefer to be able to sift through other work when I'm examining someone at RFA. I do not disrespect the very important work of those like J.delanoy and The Thing That Should Not Be. In fact, I sincerely appreciate the time and effort they put into being Wikipedia's first line of defense. The aforementioned comment on my talk page was merely indicative that, as a personal preference, I'd rather not sift through hundreds or even thousands of a RFA candidate's vandalism reversions and automated warnings to find edits that demonstrate working knowledge of policies not related to vandalism. Your depiction of me grouping general Huggle usage with alcoholism is frankly incorrect and completely unfounded. Useight (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another example of why the word "literally" ought to be outlawed. Şłџğģő 02:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't help but notice my name here... anyways, there is a script that can hide Huggle edits in a users contributions, specifically this one. It's a bit of a hit or miss thing with that though, as it isn't always successful in hiding all Huggle edits. But it certainly does help in sifting through a users contributions, particularly if you're looking for contributions in the Wikipedia namespace, such as UAA reports, ANI discussions, RfA discussions, etc... The Thing Vandalize me 02:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, nice. I wasn't aware of that script; that seems like it could definitely be useful. I will have to try it out. Thanks for the heads-up on that one. Useight (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Cheers! The Thing Vandalize me 07:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Useight_3&oldid=338648363"