Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Anonymous Dissident: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Support: fuck me sideways, he's finally doing it
Line 101: Line 101:
#'''Support''' Some things are worth coming out of retirement for. [[User:Shappy|Meetare Shappy]] <sup>[[User Talk:Shappy|''Cunkelfratz!'']]</sup> 22:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Some things are worth coming out of retirement for. [[User:Shappy|Meetare Shappy]] <sup>[[User Talk:Shappy|''Cunkelfratz!'']]</sup> 22:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
#No problems with Anon Diss - he'll make a fine crat. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
#No problems with Anon Diss - he'll make a fine crat. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Fuck-me-sideways support'''. I suppose the badgering paid off. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' 22:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


=====Oppose=====
=====Oppose=====

Revision as of 22:58, 24 March 2009

Anonymous Dissident

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (19/0/1); Scheduled to end 20:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Hello, I am Anonymous Dissident, a Wikipedian since 17 January, 2007. From the day of my registry I was very attracted to this idea of a free encyclopedia that anyone could edit, an open fountainhead of information. This being the source of my involvement, I soon became a regular contributor, and I was granted sysop rights in September of the same year. Not long after this, I began to explore Wikimedia more deeply, and am now a contributor to several of the sister projects, including Meta, the English Wikisource, Commons and Wikispecies; and here I am now, spending my time on Wikipedia doing the things I've done for the most of my time on the project: writing encyclopedic articles, helping with maintenance, and partaking in administration.

At the core of it, I've decided to have a shot at bureaucratship because I believe I would make an effective addition to the current cohort and have good experience in a number of bureaucrat-related fields. I've been a clerk at Wikipedia:Changing usernames and its subpages for over a year, and with over 600 edits between these pages, I feel confident in my knowledge of Wikipedia's rename process and our username policy. I'm an active participant at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, both in the evaluation of candidates and the general maintenance of RfA candidacies (SNOW and NOTNOW closures and the like). I also think I have a reasonable understanding of the bot flagging process and related policies; although, not being much of a programmer or a bot operator, I've not been involved as much in this area as the previous two. Lastly, although bureaucratship on the English Wikipedia differs in many ways from bureaucratship on smaller wikis, I have prior experience with this position on both Meta and Wikispecies.

With that, I humbly present my candidacy to the community, with thanks to all who participate. It would be my deepest honour to serve our great project in this position. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Consensus or lack thereof is what bureaucrats are tasked with assessing when it comes to the closure of RfX’s. How this assessment is to be conducted and how consensus is to be determined requires a more extended response and consideration of a number of factors. Our policy on the matter asserts that candidates with over 80% support are generally promoted and candidates with under 70% support are generally not promoted, and, as far as RfA goes, this has generally been a precedent. However, my liberal use of the word “generally” here is intentional, because bureaucrats are not appointed for their proficiency with calculators or their ability to count. In the RfA process, numbers and percentages can be quite opaque, and the content of participants’ supports and opposes are integral to the judgement of consensus. The role of the bureaucrat, therefore, is to qualitatively rather than quantitatively evaluate the concerns of the opposition and the approvals of the supporters in order to ascertain where the general agreement lies and if, ultimately, the community has consensus as to whether they are comfortable with the user in question having the administrator functions. That’s what it all comes down to.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. In situations where candidacies are split and the contributing elements on either side of the debate are complex, I think second opinions are always of benefit. A bureaucrat discussion is a good way of sorting through problems like this. However, a "crat chat" like this should never be conducted in the way that the bureaucrats are forging a more privatised and "elite" form of consensus about the RfA amongst themselves; rather, it should be used to discuss the community's consensus (or lack thereof) with regard to the RfA. Depending on circumstance, it may also be appropriate to extend the ending date of the RfA to see whether more time might allow the community to find a clearer consensus.
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. As outlined in my nomination statement, I feel quite confident in my knowledge of policy in relation to the 'crat tasks, and I think I'm able to communicate well with others. However, I won't say much more here; I leave it up to the community to determine, one way or the other, whether they think I would make a suitable bureaucrat in these regards.
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. Certainly. Time constraints will not be a problem for me, and I have the inclination.

Optional questions from iPatrol

5. Will you strengthen enforcement of WP:NPA at RFAs? Ipatrol (talk)
A.
6. Will you consider the validity and usefulness of the comments at an RFA important in your final decision? Ipatrol (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A.

Optional questions from NuclearWarfare adapted from MBisanz[1]

7. How would you close these RfA/Bs? If you opine for a crat chat, please express what you would have said there as the final determination of the outcome.
A.
8. One of of the bureaucrats elected in 2004 has yet to use any of the crat tools and others have used them very rarely. Do you think the bureaucrat position should have a minimum level of activity?
A.
9. Of the 3,500+ prior RFAs, only eight have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime; of over 100 prior RFBs, only two have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime. Under what circumstances and by what process would you extend an RFA in general?
A.
10. Francs2000, Optim, Eloquence, Danny, Ugen64, and WJBscribe were decratted at their own requests between 2004 and 2008. Of them all, the only controversial decrattings could be considered Ugen64 who resigned after a dispute over the promotion % for RFBs and Francs2000 who resigned after a dispute over tallying RFA results. Danny's remains the unusual case of him resigning both crat and sysop rights and later being re-RFA'd, all in connection with his ceasing employment at the Wikimedia Foundation. Which of these users would you re-crat if they asked at WP:BN and which would you require to re-run RfB?
A.
11. Hi AD. It's not really a suprise to see this - I've been watching you clerking at the username board and figured this was coming. I was set for a support but looking at your contributions I can't really see any evidence in the last six months of you judging consensus - for example by closing an WP:AFD debate or similar. Whilst you have my trust, I require more than that to support an RFB - can you provide some evidence of where you have been asked to read, interpret and act on a consensus seeking discussion within en.wikipedia? Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)7[reply]
A.

Optional question from User:Hipocrite

12. You are listed as "open to recall," as an administrator. Why? Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support
  1. Excellent and fully trusted user in my book. I have no qualms about him being added to the bureaucrat position. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hell Yes — Jake Wartenberg 20:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support - AnonDiss is among our most well-qualified candidates for bureaucratship. I give my full support. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Definitely. --Kbdank71 20:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Has the knowledge and dedication. -- Mentifisto 20:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Ran into you a few times, and think you are fully qualified.--Res2216firestar 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seems to be good, though not fully sure about judgement. I suspect some opposition in that movement. Ceranthor 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do realize that you supported, but I really don't know what you mean about judgment. Can you please explain? Is there a hidden, buried part of Anonymous Dissident's past that everyone has forgotten or overlooked? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Total support Absolutely. --GedUK  21:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, I trust you. Synergy 21:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support (and I do not give that often). AD would make an excellent 'crat, in my opinion. He has demonstrated an undertsanding of consensus and the cordiality to implement it sans drama. He is unquestionably worthy of trust. -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Why not? Great user.--Giants27 T/C 21:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Edit conflict Support. Even temperament, haven't seen anything to make me oppose. We need more good 'crats. Hermione1980 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I still wish we could get a bot-focused crat, but Anon Diss is qualified. MBisanz talk 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I agree with pretty much everything above, and on top of that, I'm more likely to support at RfB than the average voter. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I see no issues with Anonymous Dissident's behavior around Wikipedia. He would most definitely be an asset to the community if he was promoted to a crat. Good on you for wanting to help more! Foxy Loxy Pounce! 22:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Full support. My ideal choice for a crat. Seraphim♥ 22:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Per Foxy Loxy. -download | sign! 22:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The most qualified 'crat hopeful I've ever !voted for. No chance of abuse, every chance of great work at CHU. Good luck...  GARDEN  22:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support User has used his admin tools well .The use rhas been around since Jan 2007 and looking at the 489 blocks done show the user has used his tools well and also his protects and deletions are okay.Similarly the protects Excellent and fully trustworthy user who has contributed immensely to Wikipedia.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Very active editor, I am sure he will make an excellent crat LetsdrinkTea 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Some things are worth coming out of retirement for. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 22:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. No problems with Anon Diss - he'll make a fine crat. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Fuck-me-sideways support. I suppose the badgering paid off. bibliomaniac15 22:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. Neutral Leaning support You certainly seem to have enough edits, and you are definitely not too reliant on tools like Huggle and Twinkle. If you could show me some instances where you successfully settled a conflict, I'll be more than happy to switch to support.--Iner22 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Anonymous_Dissident&oldid=279466056"