Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Cecropia2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kangie (talk | contribs) at 15:01, 12 May 2007 (→‎Discussion: s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cecropia

Voice your opinion Scheduled to end 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - This is my self-nomination to resume the duties of bureaucrat in English Wikipedia. Cheers, Cecropia 16:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination not requiring separate acceptance


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. I understand that the sentiments on consensus have moved in the direction of seeking agreement independent of strict numbers. I support this and always have and hope to learn, upon review, how the community now views this issue. My concern isn't in the overweaning important of numbers, but rather the kind of subjective judgment that the community is willing to grant bureaucrats.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. As I always have. Labor to see that the most supportable decision is made, and then be ready to defend and explain that decision. As in the past, I would not change any decision (as with a referee or umpire) unless there were overwhelming or new information to show that the decision should be different. In that case, I would be inclined to support reopening or resubmitting the nomination to see if consensus has changed based on the new information.
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. On this question, I must ask that my past history be reviewed.
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?
I was a bureaucrat here from June 2004 through March 2006, during which time I had the honor of pushing the button for 356 of our administrators (approximately 1/3 of all those promoted) and took the unhappy responsibility to remove some 100 or more nominations that didn't succeed (stats. I asked Angela to remove the bureaucrat flag from my account on April 1, 2006, a request which she kindly acceded to.
I wanted to take an extended vacation from "bureaucracy" and give others a chance to hash things out without me. I learned long ago in life the old business maxim that no one is indispensable and, if one really believes that, one must accept that premise for oneself. It has been a year and month and some days since I voluntarily left the bureaucracy. I could have simply stopped being active as many other bureaucrats have done without relinquishing the flag, but I wanted it to remove the technical rights assigned to bureaucracy so that I could make a clean break until the time came that I might resume my service and that, if I did wish to resume that service, I would stand before the community again for their assent and approval.
My record at Wikipedia as editor, admin and bureaucrat is a long and open book which I fully embrace, which is why I haven't answered the above questions individually. I always prided myself on striving to fulfill the promises I made when I first ran for bureaucrat.
Should the community honor me by again entrusting me with the bureaucrat's button you may expect me to act much as I did before. My highest calling is to use the community's consensus to discharge the bureaucrat's responsibilities, to always engage the community when questioned, and to act without favoritism. I will not be very active at first, so that I may study what has happened in the past year plus, to see how the community consensus has evolved. With respect, -- Cecropia 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Durin

5. What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A.:I believe that is the subject of 1. above.
6. What is your definition of consensus?
A.:What the community agrees it is. Consensus can change, otherwise a lot of polling organizations would go out of business.

Question from Tony Sidaway

7. When can you start?
A.:When and if a bureaucrat determines that consensus requires that he or she push the button which enables me to push the button. ;-)

Additional question from Durin

8. How would you have closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krimpet and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slumgum? Please be as clear as possible and explain your rationale.
A.:Your question is reasonable but, considering the care I've always tried to give to difficult RfAs, I am at a disadvantage to try to, in effect, judge these already accomplished decisions. This is why I have said that, if my bcrat flag is restored, I will start slow so that I can gain a sense of community sentiment. On all the RfAs that I acted on, I had the advantage of being able to watch them as they progressed and, of course, I read all the comments on close RfAs, and followed arguments for and against to sources when provided. However, not to leave you with no answer, I will still apply Occam's razor to get a sense of RfAs before going in deeper. On that basis I can say that, on Krimpet's RfA, I would probably not have promoted in the case of the example given. Why? There were very significant objections, fully a third of those expressing an opinion. But more than that, the sentiment was that the editor needed some more seasoning so it seems that it would be in the best interests of all to give the editor a few more months before reintroducing a nomination, so that he or she could be expected to become an admin with more universal support. -- Cecropia 23:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon now... =P Krimpet (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8A. Well, if we are going to play this game, how about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny? (Hint: there is no right answer. Show your working.) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Show my working? Does neatness count? :) As I alluded above, I cannot do justice to these RfAs in which I did not participate. I have a long history of engaging the community, whatever the definition of consensus has been. That history is an open book on issues that were not moot. -- Cecropia 16:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from gaillimh

9. Is having a few extra buttons a big deal? Is having a few extra buttons to give someone a few extra buttons a big deal?
They can be. -- Cecropia 16:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that you view my response as evasion, per your Oppose below. I try to say what I mean. You asked a straightforward question and that is a straightforward answer. I think the amount of argumentation about RfA is an indication that many believe that Bureaucracy is not a matter of "having a few extra buttons." So my response remains "they can be." -- Cecropia 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks again for taking time out to respond! Maybe it's my fault for being unclear, as I may have used colloquialisms that may be foreign to you. Basically, I'm wondering if you think being an admin is a big deal. If it is, do you think it shouldn't be? If it isn't, do you think it should be? How would you feel about promoting a user under the WP:PROA system? Again, I appreciate your responses, and please don't feel pressured to answer my queries :) gaillimhConas tá tú? 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two parts to the "no big deal" issue. First is whether the "additional buttons" is a big deal. My personal view is no in most cases. The ability to delete articles and protect articles could create administrative problems in the wrong hands, but at least those are reversible. The second part is what you might call the "trust and recognition" issue. Despite substantial sentiment that an admin is a janitorial position, there is also significant feeling that it displays trust in an editor; that to be an admin shows that the community gives an editor an honorable confirmation. So long as the latter feeling exists, adminship will be as big a deal as the community thinks it is. As to WP:PROA, plesae give me time to consider that; BUT be aware that no matter my personal feelings I have taken it as an article of faith that the community, not the 'crat, sets the standards for adminship. -- Cecropia 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extended reply! I think the problem was with my original wording of the question. I find your commitment to the community consensus and the willingness to set your personal feelings aside to be terrific qualities in a bureaucrat on en.wiki gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from nae'blis

10. What are your thoughts on bureaucrats discussing controversial/borderline promotions amongst themselves to evaluate consensus, rather than acting singly in those cases? For a recent example, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat_chat. How and when would you utilize such a system, if you do support the idea?
In the specific case of Danny, I think the Bureaucrat Chat was absolutely the right thing to do. I think we need to be aware that Danny is also a very special case, due to his long history of service in Wikipedia and the many complex issues raised in the nomination. As a general rule, though, I have to be cognizant of the fact that an ongoing issue of RfA (and one which encouraged me to run for bureaucrat in the first place) is the fact that it has often been difficult to find a single bureaucrat to make certain that promotions/removals are made in a timely basis. With that in mind I believe the best policy is, that if a bureaucrat is thoroughly confident as to how an RfA should be handled, and is ready, willing and able to explain the decision, then that bureaucrat should act. Ordinarily if a bureaucrat see that a nomination needs to be closed but feels uncertain as to consensus, then it would be appropriate to either leave it alone long enough for another 'crat to act, or else actively consult at least one more 'crat. In truly difficult cases like Danny's, a discussion and consensus among 'crats is appropriate. Please understand that this is a matter of practicality among other things. If I were confident that, at any given time we could have at least three bureaucrats readily available, we could entertain the luxury of every judgment RfA being decided by at least 2 out of 3 'crats, with discussion when there is no unanimity, but this is getting into Dr. Pangloss territory. -- Cecropia 19:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Wizardman:

11. Why the sudden interest in reapplying for bureaucratship now, when you haven't been all that active in the Wikipedia community? Sounds kinda redundant to #4, but I'm mainly asking, why in early-mid May of all times?
There is no special date significance to reapplying in May, just as there was no special date significance to leaving on April 1, except that more than a year has passed and, when I happened to take a look at RfA to see what was going on, and saw that RfA was again very active. Is there something special about mid-May ("of all times") I'm missing? -- Cecropia 14:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Could you basically sum up why you want to be a bureaucrat again and how you would handle yourself, as speaking to someone who has never seen you around before?
My philosophy is fairly well covered in the last paragraph of my comments below q.4. Also, I have been reminded of the many nice Wikipedians I engaged with in my prior term as bcrat, and I do feel that I still have something positive to add to the community. -- Cecropia 14:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

This question was posed on my User Talk. I'm posting the reply here so all can read it. I appreciate the question. -- Cecropia 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a Wikipedia-related reason for your requesting to have Bureaucrat removed on April 1? - jc37 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. At the time there was some amount of contention from a few users as to how RfA was being and should be run. I believed (and still believe) that I and the other bureaucrats had broad community support. I have always been in the habit of explaining my reasoning and actions on Wikipedia quite thoroughly. I believed (and still do) that knowing that decisions are made reasonably and without personal favoritism was a key element in Wikipedians having confidence in a process that is considered to honor those in our community who have earned our trust. I am neither retired nor a student on break, and I needed to devote a lot of time to my Wikiwork, so that the long discussions were taking a toll on me and was getting just plain worn down. I was getting Wikiwilt. After talking myself out (many would not have thought that possible) in a contentious nomination, a user playfully (I think) suggested that I take a break and edit more (or something to that effect). It just struck me on the moment as a Very Good Idea and I took him up on it. It was a very good decision. Others have stepped away from Wikipedia in one way or another for awhile, and have come back (often) refreshed and better, IMO of course. -- Cecropia 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome : )
My main reason for asking was since you (presumably) left for uncontroversial reasons, you can likely just ask someone at WP:BN to reinstate you. (I don't know if you knew that already.) In any case, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, after a year away, I think it's fair to give all and especially our last year's new Wikipedians a chance to say yea or nay. In fact, when Angela proposed that all Bureaucrats stand for affirmation annually, I was in favor it. So here I stand. :) -- Cecropia 17:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... but why have it removed on April 1 in particular? Bishonen | talk 22:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Not sure where you're going with this question. If I asked "why on May 10 in particular?", would that question make sense to you? On the assumption that it wouldn't, my point is that unless you explain why April 1 seems different from May 10 (do you think Cecropia was joking?) your question sounds equally nonsensical. If the question "why on May 10 in particular?" does make sense to you, then perhaps you could explain why. I'm just flailing around and trying to work out what relevance you think a particular date would have. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no significance to April 1, unless I was making a joke; but I (obviously?) wasn't. Just a coincidence. -- Cecropia 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support - I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be a 'crat again, you did good work then, lets have you do good work again! Ryan Postlethwaite 17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Welcome back, from what I can tell, your previous departure from bureaucratship was uncontroversial so I see no reason why you shouldn't have it back. John Reaves (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum:I don't see why you couldn't just have your flag back since you left under non-controversial circumstances, I'd suggest asking at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard
  3. Support. Cecropia was one of our best bureaucrats for a long time. Chick Bowen 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - (3 editconflicts) has been a great contributor for nearly 4 years and has been able to cope with Bureaucrat duties before and can continue to do so in the future...----Cometstyles 17:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Nothing more needs to be said. -- DS1953 talk 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Worked well before, so not much to question here. Voice-of-All 17:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support; experience, excellent judgement, always has the best interests of the project in mind: everything's good here. Antandrus (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per all the above. Mike Christie (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Did a great job before and will do a great job once again.--Alabamaboy 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I admire your open and honest approach. --Dweller 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. This is probably the best test yet of whether anyone can pass RFB. Effective Bureaucrat in the past and I trust he can be again. Dragons flight 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per overall record as a bureaucrat, an admin, and a contributor. Newyorkbrad 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I agree that it's appropriate to go through RFB again given the amount of time passed since he quit.-gadfium 20:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, see no reason to oppose given that he has successfully been a 'crat in the past and left under no cloud. Would not have objected to his simply asking for them back and receiving them, but also not objecting to his going through RfB again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I think that you could get these back just for the asking as any admin could go who gave up their privs under similar terms. The fact that you choose to go through this process again simply reaffirms to me why you should be reinstated. --After Midnight 0001 20:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Welcome back. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support contra Majorly. Full trust irrespective of intensity receng activity. Must have more crats. -- Y not? 21:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - welcome back. The Rambling Man 21:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I am in favour of reinstating this user as a 'crat--Docg 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I'm not particularly convinced by concerns of recent inactivity — if this user made a fine job before, I'm sure he'd make a fine job now. The term "consensus" hasn't changed much since he resigned. Michaelas10 22:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Briefly coming out of (semi)-retirement to support a great bcrat. ChazBeckett 23:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I see no reason to oppose, pace Majorly below. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Crecropia performed an amazing 356 promotions during his previous term as a Bureaucrat. There is no doubt that he is committed to the project and would use the tools extensively (I hope they don't wear out). I think his answers above show that he is aware of the community's difficulties in deciding what constitutes consensus in RfAs and that he is sensitive to them (I don't see what more we can realistically ask). Basically he has a fanstatic CV for the job and I think we'll benefit from his being allowed to start being a 'crat again. WjBscribe 01:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, did fine before, don't see why he wouldn't now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support absolutely, good to have Cecropia back -- Samir 02:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Honestly, it's not that hard to learn what's been going on at RfAs lately. He can just hang out for a few days and get the general idea of new changes to the system, and I think he would be fine from there. Besides, he's had tons of experience in the other aspects of bureaucratship, such as usurpations. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I'm fully confident that Cercopia will take the time needed to get a feel for what has changed about RfA (if anything). Bottom line is that he's already shown that he's responsible enough to be an effective b'crat and his temporary absence is being given undue weight. Pascal.Tesson 03:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, definitely. Cecropia was a great bureaucrat. I don't know why Cecropia resigned, but either way I am happy he wants to take up the job again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Even though he stated in question #9 that he would have failed my recent RfA had he closed it... I don't have to worry about that. =P Looks like he was a great 'crat, no reason not to give him back his position. Krimpet (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you have a generous spirit! :) I don't know that I would have failed your nomination based on the current concept of consensus, but I thought it appeared (since I didn't have the opportunity to give the nomination the attention it would have gotten if I were an active 'crat at the time) to be a textbook example of a nomination that could have been given a later revival with unqualified support. Mind you, I personally am not an edit counter; it is the quality and engagement with the community that impresses me, but the community doesn't ask me when it sets its standards. ;-) -- Cecropia 05:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Maximim support. I remember when Cecropia was a 'crat the first time around. He was good then. He'll be good now. bd2412 T 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. A former 'crat who resigned for completely uncontroversial reasons, and wants the Big Black Buttons back? A user in good standing with no evidence of ever breaking anything? Who has already proved responsibility by being a 'crat? Yeah, I'm all in support for that. ♠PMC♠ 05:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. With no complaints before, I don't see why there should be any now. And why should we discourage people from coming out and saying that they're taking breaks, when others just disappear and thereby retain the buttons? Dekimasuよ! 06:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support If the only reason a user is opposed for, is a lack of activity recently... There's no reason for me to oppose. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 06:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Cecropia was a good bureaucrat when he had the bit, lets give him it back Alex Bakharev 08:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support I am really impressed. —Anas talk? 09:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I've been persuaded. You were a 'crat before, and I don't think you made any really awful decisions. And more 'crats = more admins. But remember RfA is not a vote, and do close RfAs with the community's interest in mind. Also, perhaps you could look at changing usernames as well – although Secretlondon is doing a great job there, she could always do with some help I'm sure. Majorly (hot!) 09:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Mos def support. Phaedriel - 12:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I remember coming across the talk page of one user (since admined) on his first RFA and finding the most human and personalized message of regret from Cecropia informing the user that his candidacy had failed, one of only two such notices from a crat that spring to my mind. Cecropia was a pillar of the 'crat corp and I'm happy that he is recharged and willing to come back. (For those people who want more details about the resignation, The Signpost article gives some context.) - BanyanTree 12:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. You did a great job previously. Definitely yes. – Chacor 13:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I think RFA will be much better off with Cecropia back as a b'crat. --W.marsh 13:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Good to have you back. Kusma (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support without reservation. NoSeptember 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Resumption of previous duties is fine, as per your answer to Tony's questions above. (aeropagitica) 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - I see nothing wrong here, let them resumse their duties. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Has served as an excellent contributer, admin and bureaucrat. The answers to the questions are in my opinion excellent, and I see no reason to think that this user should not become a bureaucrat again. Camaron1 | Chris 20:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47.  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 21:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support absolutely and without any doubts or hesitation. Sarah 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 01:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support John254 03:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support: I son't see any problems with this user. They seem very dedicated to the project even though their amount of edits have fallen recently. I don't see any reason not to support.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 04:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Always good to have more people pushing buttons (moved from an opposition statement) gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Weak Support It would be nice to see a little more usage of the admin tools as some go back too almost one year ago within the first few shown out of fifty, due to the fact you used to be a b'crat, I think you could be trusted. Good luck!The Sunshine Man 13:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. More people to do the work is a good idea. semper fictilis 13:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Per WJBscribe.--U. S. A. 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, per above Kangie 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Sorry Cecropia, but I think this is the wrong time for an RfB. You've made barely 200 edits in the last six months, and I think, since you've been out of the community as a regular, you need more time to settle back in, and observe and take part in what goes on here nowadays. I think after a couple of months of active editing, especially round the RfA discussions you'll be fine. Majorly (hot!) 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first point is fair enough. The second is ridiculous - RfA is a slimepit and I see no reason to insist that those who would clean it up must mud-wrestle first.--Docg 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His answer to question one indicates that he is currently uncertain as to how the community stands on agreement versus numbers and on "the kind of subjective judgment that the community is willing to grant bureaucrats." Where outside RfA do you propose an RfA closer (a primary role of a 'crat) to figure out what subjective judgement we currently are willing to give 'crats? Especially since his answers talk of admin promotions as the area of likely activity. GRBerry 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole community seems to be uncertain as to how the community stands on consensus versus numbers. That the candidate is uncertain how we stand on this issue is a reflection that he is more au courant with the current state of play than he may realize! (Or perhaps it's more a function of plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose.) Newyorkbrad 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the substance of GRBerry's comment, my response is that, if I am reinstated as a bcrat I will thoroughly study the current state of RfA in order to be able to perform the will of the community. When I was an active bcrat my sense was that, though trusted, the community wanted the bureaucrats to exercise their own discretion only when necessary. I would be surprised if the consensus of Wikipedians was to make bcrats "superusers," as it were, substituting their own judgment for the community's. -- Cecropia 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support, I've been persuaded. Majorly (hot!) 09:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose: Even if I'm the only person opposing, this needs to be said and done. Cecropia, I have considerable respect for you but I am not comfortable with the prospect of you being a bureaucrat at this time. My reasons are this;
    • Meaning of consensus: First, and foremost, I do not feel comfortable with your concept of what consensus is. In your answer to question 6, you made a comment connecting polling with consensus. Consensus is not about polling. It just isn't a vote. THE chief problem that underlies just about every other problem we have at RfA is the lack of understanding of what consensus means. Your answers leave me considerably concerned that you would make this problem worse. Your answer to question 1 might strike some as proving otherwise, but I see it as a continuance of lack of understanding of consensus. Bureaucrats evaluate consensus, not establish it, and your comments about subjective judgement further convince me that you would make this problem worse. At a minimum, I would ask a potential bureaucrat not make a problem worse, and in the best of worlds help to make it better. Your assessment of the Krimpet RfA cinches this for me. Many people have regarded you as the strictest vote counting bureaucrat we ever had. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that your stance had changed, but your answers have left me completely unconvinced.
      • Also with respect, Durin, I believe that you are interpreting my brief answers to questions in a fashion that reflects an underlying concern about how I view the RfA process. I would ask you to consider the circumstances when I first became a bureaucrat. At that time there were (IIRC) something under 300 admins. Go back to 2004 and look at the RfA talk archives from about Archive 13 on, and you will see that there were constant discussions, which I fully participated in in the later archives, about the meaning of consensus. Bureaucracy was very new and I think some (including at least one b'crat) have lost sight of this. The reason I and a number of others became bureaucrats at the time was because the existing initital bureaucrats (most of whom are still at least technically 'crats) had begun to wander off from RfA. It came to the point where Angela was making most promotions, but she much else to do at Wikipedia. When she realized that promotions simply weren't being made in anything close to a timely fashion, she asked for others to step forward and stand for bureaucrat. I and others responded. Contrary to assertions I have seen on RfA talk, I did not come in and change the infant RfA process--there wasn't an established process that inspired confidence; I set out to try to determine, through discussions and polling, how others viewed consensus. I had no preconception; but I saw a process in which there was a lot of argumentation and not too much trust in the process. I believe I did much to establish that.
      • I have seen any number of reference here to the concept that RfA is in a state of flux. I guess I'm a little surprised (and a little hurt) that you assume that when I say that consensus is what the community says it means that I will determine what consensus is and will change the standard to what it was when last I was active. That is a strange reading both my words, I think, and of my history at Wikipedia.
    • Inexperience: "How could that be given your past experience?", some might ask. I recognize that you would go slowly at first. But, you've been completely disconnected from RfA for over a year now. Coming back here, and tossing your hat in the ring seemingly without any consideration of the current situation at RfA speaks to me that you have not evaluated yourself with regards to the current situation and whether you could contribute effectively. This is part of the reason I expect all bureaucrat candidates to be active at WT:RFA due to experience issues. RfA has changed significantly over the last year, and there have been some very raucous discussions regarding a whole slew of situations, including Carnildo, Ryulong, the Essjay bruhaha and clerking at WP:CHU, and recent format reform attempts. These situations created record amounts of discussion. You were present for none of this. Not knowing those situations and how they affected RfA and its climate leaves you in a position incapable of effectively working as a bureaucrat until you've relearned the ropes at a minimum, and preferably re-evaluated yourself with regards to community expectations and your ability to contribute positively. To give a real life analogy, Winston Churchill was the perfect PM for WWII. When he became PM after WWII, he was...less than desirable. His tool set was not well suited to being PM during the after war years. You may be entirely unsuited to what is expected of bureaucrats now. You have no way of knowing that without having spent time re-acquainting yourself with RfA. That's just RfA. There's been significant changes at bot approvals, heavy debates, etc. There's been major changes at WP:CHU as well. At this point, you're simply too inexperienced.
      • The Winston Churchill analogy is interesting and a little flattering, I suppose. I'd say my closest resemblance to Churchill is that I smoke a cigar; however I can't even claim that--I don't smoke a cigar or anything else. ;-) I understand that you are trying to say that someone who is "right" at one time is not "right" at another. OK, but I believe the comparison is inappropriate on a different level. Churchill was not a consensus builder; he was a person who had a certain experience and understanding of the nature of the world in his time. World War II was not run by consensus or by polling individual, or groups, or by creating focus groups to see if Hitler was still a problem. He didn't shift, the public shifted--when the public saw that Churchill was right about the threat of Hitler, he became a genius (so to speak), and when the war was successfully completed, that same public tired of him quickly. This is the fate of many politicians who are faced with war. But you see, I don't view RfA as a war: I have tried to be a stabilizing influence so that the community could determine what it felt consensus was without falling into excessive bickering with each other. The prime thing I would like to express in response to your observations, however, is that you seem to be convinced that my tenure as bureaucrat has been the expression of a rigid philosophy. You don't seem to feel that I approach issues with managerial skill and a desire to find out what the community wants. This is a true in the current climate as when I first became a 'crat. Mind you, I was never one of the bureaucrats who pushed the button (or not) and then, when questioned, said (in effect) "I'm a bureaucrat, and you're not. I had the power and I exercised it."
    • No new bureaucrats: Grandmasterka noted below that should you pass this RfB, this may be the last bureaucrat promotion for over a year. I concur with this assessment. You were the most active bureaucrat in the last many months of your previous tenure. If you become a bureaucrat again, it's likely that Grandmasterka's prediction will come true, as the old argument of "we don't need more bureaucrats" will rise yet again. This is not a reason to oppose by itself of course. However, combined with the first point I feel this is dangerous. Why? I believe RfA is actively causing harm to the project now, and it must...must...reform. I am very far from alone in this opinion. I believe you would be a hindrance to that reform, given my statements in the first point. With no new blood being able to come into the bureaucrat corps for a very long time should you become a bureaucrat yourself, I feel that you becoming a bureaucrat again will actively cause hindrance to reform efforts, and thus harm the project.
    • You were an effective bureaucrat during your prior tenure. But, the situation has dramatically changed. It is time for a new direction, a new leadership, and I do not feel you are the right choice for that role. I fully respect you and your contributions to the project, but can not endorse you at this time. With all respect, --Durin 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You, and a few others, seem to have a vision of RfA which you believe I don't share. I don't know whether that is true or not. You "believe RfA is actively causing harm to the project now, and it must...must...reform." If this is so, I don't know why you believe I am part of the problem and not the solution. I've known you a long time, Durin; thank you for sharing your honest perceptions. -- Cecropia 14:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were an effective bureaucrat during your prior tenure. But, the situation has dramatically changed. It is time for a new direction, a new leadership, and I do not feel you are the right choice for that role. I fully respect you and your contributions to the project, but can not endorse you at this time. With all respect, --Durin 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Bureaucrats are put in place to exercise the will of the community. They are not leaders. The power to change RfA is not vested with them." —Durin, at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mackensen. Chick Bowen 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is not contrary to my position. You're interpreting my above words too literally. Thank you, --Durin 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You summarized your position by saying "It is time for a new direction, a new leadership, and I do not feel you are the right choice for that role." how does that not contradict the quite Bowen brought up? If b'crats aren't leaders and are not to change RFA, it's odd that you oppose him for not being a new leader and not having a new direction for RFA. --W.marsh 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I stated, this is not contradictory with my earlier words. You are interpreting my use of the word "leadership" too literally. I do not mean it in the sense of carrying a rallying flag into a bold new future for RfA. That's what Mackensen was attempting, and that's part of the reason I opposed him. Bureaucrats are in a role position, and what they do affects us all. That is the form of leadership I am talking about. --Durin 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fair enough, I suppose, but I did want to remind you of your earlier words. What you are calling for here is a bureaucrat who is a full-fledged participant in the battles at WT:RFA but not aggressive in trying to shape them, who is committed to change but not determined to dictate it. That's a noble thing to be, I guess, but I can think of no one who qualifies. I supported both Mackensen and Cecropia, on the grounds that we're better off with somebody smart, regardless of his wikipolitical positions. Chick Bowen 16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I echo that sentiment. I'm not sure anyone will ever fit your description Durin. Of course it's your right to wait for your dream-candidate but you might be waiting for a while! Pascal.Tesson 16:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • What you are echoing is words put in my mouth. I'm sorry, but that is not what I said. --Durin 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How am I putting words in your mouth? I've suggested that you are using RFB as part of your campaign to change RFA. That is what you're doing, isn't it? And that means you can't support a candidate for bureaucrat unless he or she is on board with your specific recommendations for change at RFA, right? Chick Bowen 19:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose - I'm not happy with this candidate's positions, as per answers to the questions. RfA is a numerical vote. Admins should be promoted based on numerical consensus, i.e. having 70% support or higher. All the comments about no "personal favouritism" ought to be irrelevant - the bureaucrat should not make the "decision" on an RfA, just implement the result of the community vote. I don't understand why Wikipedia has this irrational aversion to voting. It's easy enough to spot sockpuppets and SPAs when they vote on things. But the views of all members of the community should count equally. Walton Need some help? 17:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boy that's interesting. I'm opposing because I believe Cecropia lacks a full understanding of consensus, and would tend towards strict voting too much. You're opposing because you think the opposite. *boggle* :) --Durin 17:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't please all of the people all of the time, it seems. Now that's a really tough call for a bureaucrat. Do the contrary objections cancel each other out, or do they double? ;-) -- Cecropia 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Durin, I am taking the liberty to post my response here to your concerns on my Talk Page. To keep the physical size of this RfB within reason, I would encourage all to click the link to see the entire discussion. -- Cecropia 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Durin, I hear your objections and will reread them to better absorb them. I think you misunderstand something about me at Wikipedia. I try to say what I mean and mean what I say. I believe that what you feel is evasion on my part is my attempt to be open about a process that I have not been intimate with for a year. When and if I resume my b'crat flag I will study thoroughly all the debate and the state of the process to understand where we are. I would be grateful if you can help me to understand this. I was a vote-counter because I felt that was where the community was at the time. What surprises me is that you seem to feel I am all about an agenda when I have tried to be all about the community. I came to the bureaucracy very soon after it was formed. I felt I left RfA in better shape than I found it. Multiple editors, including you, seem to feel that RfA is now in worse shape than I left it. It is a difficult logical leap for understand that you think I would impact RfA negatively if I return. -- Cecropia 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Hehe, Walton, maybe you should write a bureaucrat bot :) It'd do the job just as well as you'd like. Majorly (hot!) 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know much about the technical side of things, and don't know if giving a bot the bureaucrat functions would be practical. But that would be a good idea in principle, yes, and would be far superior to the present system. The only thing we'd have to establish is a minimum suffrage requirement (say, 500 edits) to exclude sockpuppets and SPAs, and to ensure that all voters (yes, I'll say it again, voters) are experienced enough to understand what adminship is about. Walton Need some help? 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've supported any and all bureaucrat button requests thus far, as I'm a fan of the logic that it's always nice to have extra clerks at the checkout counter. However, given the fellow's recent inactivity, I wanted to look into Cecropia's request a bit more. I posed a relatively straightforward optional question, and while I surely appreciate that he took valuable time out of his day to respond, I am a bit unsettled by the evasiveness or fence-sitting response, which is a quality I'm a bit concerned about in a prospective bureaucrat. Good luck on this endeavour Cecropia, and regardless of the outcome, I look forward to seeing more of you around the 'pedia. Cheers! gaillimhConas tá tú? 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my elaboration to your question 9 above. -- Cecropia 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I just saw it and followed up with you up there gaillimhConas tá tú? 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

I'm disposed to support. But for those of us who don't remember you from the 'old days', I'd like you to tell us more about how you'd call things in the current climate. Please could you answer the questions - just a little even? --Docg 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC) satisfied.--Docg 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to. I would beg your indulgence as I have a non-Wiki things to accomplish this afternoon (NY time). I feel a little sense of irony, since I wrote the original questions I would now answer. But, sauce for the goose... :) -- Cecropia 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, pending answers. Majorly (hot!) 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fence sitting with peanut gallery remarks He was formerly a 'crat. So we ought to be evaluating based on his activity as a 'crat, judged by whether he followed or violated the then existing community standards. Since I wasn't active then, to evaluate this I'd need to 1) figure out the history of the community RfA promotion standards and 2) then go through the RfAs he closed and see if those standards were applied. Step #1 is too much work for me, since I wasn't active when he was a 'crat. So I sit on the fence. However, I strongly encourage Cecropia to take the time to do that study before taking any RfA related 'crat actions. I'm not aware of significant controversy in bot flag setting standards or username changes, but I think it will take a good long mess of time to read the relevant recent discussions about RfA. I also think that the closing 'crat for this discussion should ignore any "we need more" or "we don't need more" opinions that have no other rationale. GRBerry 23:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. The sentiment over RfA has changed somewhat, and I guess I would prefer someone who was less conventional, since we're probably not going to have another successful bureaucrat candidacy for over a year if this passes. (It sounds odd, I know. Cecropia set some of the trends that are present in the modern RfA process.) But I certainly can't oppose. Incidentally, check out Cecropia's first RfB... It really was a straight vote back then, much more than it is today. Grandmasterka 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Cecropia2&oldid=130334889"