Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Deskana 2

Deskana

Voice your opinion (talk page) (66/4/0); 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.

Optional question from daveh4h

Q: I noticed an oppose in your last RfB made by User:Alkivar. It regarded a small bulleted essay on your Wikipedia philosophy which you removed here. You then addressed Alkivar stating that you "didn't expect it to scare people". I think I agree what you were trying to express in your "Wikipedia Philosophy", but it is stated very bluntly and some may have a problem with it. Do you still hold similar feelings expressed there? If not, how have you changed? (Please don't feel bound by these specific questions, address it as you wish)

A: I really didn't expect anyone to find it scary. That represents my philosophy, that the spirit is more important than the letter of the rule. I still hold that principle highly, I just don't parade it on my userpage in a confrontational manner anymore. It's quite understandable that people would see it scary, but I guess I just figured something I quickly jotted down on my userpage wouldn't really matter. About the IAR thing... don't get me wrong, the letter of the rule is important. It exists for a reason, after all. If things didn't need to be so specifically stated, they wouldn't be. The spirit is just more important, even if it contradicts the letter.

Question from Walton:

Q. Given that Danny's RfA closed at only 68% support, with over 100 good-faith opposes from established users, do you believe it was right for him to be promoted? I'm not asking for an opinion on Danny himself, but on the bureaucrats' closure of that RfA, which ignored 100 people's opinions given in good faith. Walton^talk 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A: Well, I disagree with your statement that the bureaucrats "ignoring 100 people's opinions". Does that mean that every time a RfA is closed as pass when there are opposes, the bureaucrats are ignoring what they've said? No, it means that they've thought about it but ultimately decided to promote. Anyway, I thought they made the right decision, given that Danny was a good admin in the past and has been a good admin since. But I'm biased, I supported in the RfA. I doubt I would have said anything in the bureaucrat chat. RfA isn't a vote, it can just be treated that way in the majority of examples. This is where the German system has its advantages. And incidentally, the German system would have promoted him too, but it's also true it would have promoted a lot of other people that failed. --Deskana (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up to Deskana. Your answer appears to suggest that RfA is neither a vote nor a consensus. In my own re-RfB, I said that consensus was clearly not reached in that case, though the 'crats decision was valid (made in good faith), even if I couldn't say it was the right one. Please tell me how you are not saying that bureaucrats are the "real" voters on RfA, and the community only advisors? -- Cecropia 15:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologise I took so long to answer this, for some reason I thought it was aimed at Walton. Anyway, I must admit I'm slightly confused where you've managed to draw that conclusion from. That's not the way I see it. RfA is based on a consensus. Bureaucrats decide whether there is a consensus for promotion or not. They interpret the desire of the community on RfA. Does this answer your question? --Deskana (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have specified the question was for you, Deskana. Yes, bureaucrats are charged with determining consensus, and since they promoted Danny in good faith the promotion is valid. However, by any reasoning I can use, there was no consensus of the community on the RfA itself, just among the bureaucrats that Danny should be promoted. Now if you go the other way, and say that it was a vote, it didn't reach that either. My opinion is that the bureaucrats in the case were too aware of Danny's historic position in Wikipedia. If Danny were a bank, he would have been characterized as "too big to fail" so essentially I believe that the bureaucrats were leaning more toward a way to promote and avoid further conflict than to make the call that the community consensus indicated if it were almost any other candidate. I could have been restored to bureaucratship by the same reasoning as Danny's RfA if I had garnered only a 2/3 support, but I wouldn't have wanted it, not only because the community had spoken, but also because my work would be permanently tainted. -- Cecropia 21:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Thank you for the insight. --Deskana (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm still not clear on this, setting aside your personal support for Danny, do you feel that there was community consensus for his promotion? Haukur 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking long and hard about this, and my answer is no. Promoting Danny was the right thing to do in the context of improving the project... but with so many opposes you can't really say there was a consensus to promote him. I agree with Cecropia though. The bureaucrats acted in good faith and (in my opinon) made the right decision, but it wasn't based on community consensus, and I wouldn't have promoted him myself with that kind of opposition. Do you understand my position, here? Right call, but not based on the right information. --Deskana (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so promptly. The convenient thing for you to do would have been to try to brush this under the rug and I appreciate you tackling it head-on. Just to make sure I understand you correctly, do you believe that a) there was not a community consensus for the promotion of Danny and b) that the bureaucrats nevertheless did the right thing in promoting him? Haukur 23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, yes and yes. It's easy to say they made the right decision in hindsight though, and faced with a similar situation, I'd probably have said it should have closed as a fail with that much opposition, were I involved in the bureaucrat chat. But it was the right decision. --Deskana (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add a different dimension to this. Yes and no. I feel the bureaucrats did the best they could under the circumstances but, as we can see, it was a terrible precedent. Dany could have asked for his bit back (as I could've but didn't) but chose to stand for an RfA. Having stood for an RfA, he should have expected (and I have no reason to assume he didn't) the possibility it would fail and was ready to accept that. Seeing that he voluntarily submitted himself to the process and the process didn't reach consensus, that would have been the proper decision. I don't object, per se to Danny being an admin again. But, if he didn't ask for his bit back, and he didn't reach consensus on his RfA, and if he is that important to the project, then someone higher up, such as Jimbo, could have directed that he get the bit back, and not have the RfA process subverted. -- Cecropia 00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC):

10. In the past, I have noted a concept in the WT:RFA archives somewhere about "scientific scaling" of RfAs in that, in general, it would seem that the commnity thinks an individual member may have different personal standards as to what they expect of a candidate, but that it would be preferable that a given person treats candidates consistently with their standards. In some cases, there are often mutterings about people moving the bar lower because they are friends with a given candidate or conversely some people can suddenly raise the bar for some guy that they don't like. People are always grumbling about RfAs being popularity contests and so forth. How would you deal with a case, for instance, where some person perhaps got 80-85% in raw numbers, but this occurred because a group of people went soft on them for some reason (eg when some person only made 800 article edits and/or only wrote 1 stub or had only been around for 2 months - but some people who have soft spot waived their usual requirements for 2000 edits, multiple non stubs, 5 months etc etc,). Conversely, what would you do if they were below the grey zone, but had a whole group of people who suddenly used uncharacteristically high standards (eg when they oppose citing less common reasons, or selectively quoting 1FA or lack of article writing or vandal fighting, when they usually support people at a much lower bar) - This could be because the people are either "under-rated" and "unfashionable" as well as rank undisguised retaliation against an argument somewhere. What is your opinion on calibrating the opinions in such grey cases with unusual supports/oppositions? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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)
19. Support -- cant say I've really encountered this user much before, but looks like a good candidate. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
20. Support regardless of wether we believe there is a need for more 'crats or not, it can never hurt to have them. Viridae^Talk 01:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. You are highly spoken of, and we need some more 'crats. J-stan ^Talk 01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Deskana is a good user/admin (unless I've missed something), as I've seen this user out and about. We definitely need more 'crats here, as the user said, Cecropia is practically doing all the work. Good luck, (→zelzany - fish) 01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
23. Active, with broad experience and with over a year of adminship. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 02:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
24. Support- per Mr. Lefty and ReyBrujo. Eddie 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
25. Support I think I was wrong to oppose Deskana the last time. Although I think the current number of b'crats is quite satisfactory, he's been around long enough, has a fair and civil demeanor, and he doesn't seem to have any ambition for radical reform of the RfA system, a system I continue to believe works reasonably well. While he rubbed me the wrong way with his use of the "rouge" word at his first RfB, the truth is that I've never seen him do anything unreasonable. I think he'll do a fine job. Xoloz 03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
26. Support He is a thoughtful, patient admin. I trust him to be a good bureaucrat. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    Support No reason not too. --Banana 03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    You said almost exactly the same thing in vote number five. :-p --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    Oh, sorry! I got mixed up with everyone running for bureaucrat right now. --Banana 03:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

27. Support Deskana is a good choice for a bureaucrat. Captain panda 04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
28. Support-Good admin. I have trusted him for a long enough time pressing the protect, delete, and block buttons. I can trust him pressing the promote, make bot and change name buttons. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
29. Detest the sig :p But not inherently unsuited to the job. Good luck! ~ Riana ⁂ 05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. — Deckiller 05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
31. Support per the above shared sentiments and opinions. —Kurykh 05:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
32. Support nice friendly user, will be a good 'crat. Majorly (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Trustworthy and hardworking...'nuff said. Jmlk17 06:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
34. Support — More bureaucrats are needed. This user appears trustable. Matthew 08:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
35. Support - Seems willing to wikignome. I'd like to add though that I would really like to see him change his sig to a standard ascii version of his name. Strange sigs impact contactability, and (in my opinion) don't add anything. AKAF 09:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
36. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
37. If RfB is about trust - i Trust this candidate. Agathoclea 11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
38. Weak support - his signature annoys me a bit, but that's more of an RFA comment. Apart from that, this user is perfect. Will ^(talk) 13:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    I changed it back to normal. A few people said they were only seeing boxes, which I didn't think would happen. --Deskana (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

39. Support - I really liked your statement above, gave me a good impression. In addition, I see no problems in your usage of the admin tools and civility to other editors. Good luck! Camaron1 | Chris 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
40. Support, trustworthy user. · jersyko talk 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
41. -- Y not? 14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
42. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
43. Support per answers to questions, in particular the affirmation that RfA is not a vote. Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
44. Support, seems to fit the bill of a good bureaucrat from what I can see. Wizardman 14:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
45. Support (ya rly?) I agree with Deskana that we need more bureaucrats, and I trust him as much as anyone, since he is a seasoned administrtator who has contributed to the wiki in many different ways. Shalom ^Hello 15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
46. Terence 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Deskana for b'crat? Hell yes! —Anas ^talk? 15:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
48. Qst 15:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
49. Support. Trustworthy and fair. ElinorD (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
50. Support More Admins 'crats Needed, I have no concerns about this user. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
51. Support Honestly, I went through Deskana's pretty heavily. I was getting ready to support, then I saw Alkivar's oppose on the RfB and wanted to give him a chance to respond to it. There is no good reason to oppose Deskana that I can see, and we need more 'crats. daveh4h 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
52. An excellent fellow and a terrific volunteer, I am quite sure that Deskana will be a fine addition to our checkout counter clerks gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 18:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
53. Support- Good user with deep understanding of the RFA process and a firm grasp of what consensus means. Borisblue 18:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. We need more bureaucrats and he will certainly do. EdJohnston 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
55. I believe that Deskana is a good candidate, and would help the project. Ral315 » 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
56. (Edit conflict) Support. More 'crats are always necessary, and I trust Deskana fully. I have no doubt that he will only improve Wikipedia with 'crat access, not explode it. ♠PMC♠ 19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
57. Support - per nom --D-Boy 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
58. Support - Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats. Turning down a trustworthy, qualified volunteer would be insane. -- Schneelocke 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
59. Support I would trust Deskana to have a impartial opinion as a 'crat. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
60. Trustworthy admin. Will make a great addition as a 'crat. --Dark Falls ^talk 23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
61. Support. I trust Deskana with the extra tools and we need more 'crats. Will (aka Wimt) 23:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
62. Support. Deskana should make a good 'crat. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
63. Support Nice responses to the questions. Promote. Keegan^talk 01:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
64. SupportUnderstands consensus. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
65. Support I trust Deskana's sound judgment and the answer to the tricky Danny-question reinforces that feeling. Though I was in favor of promoting Danny I felt that the bureaucrat's decision was wrong (and was quite vocal about it at the time). In retrospect, the mistake of the b'crats was really to claim that they found a consensus. That actually made the decision look even more arbitrary. It would have been more honest and less clumsy to say "we don't see consensus but we still feel that the greater good is best served by promoting him". Pascal.Tesson 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
66. Support There are no major concerns here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
67. Support per eventual follow-up to my optional question. I think, all in all, that this candidate has a proper respect for community consensus. Walton^talk 08:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
68. Support -seen him around. A fantastic candidate. NikoSilver 12:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
69. Support - good and honest response to questions. shows good judgement. Sbhushan 12:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Slight Oppose Sorry, I know I'm going to get yelled at, but like I said on another RfB, we don't need another 'crat to close RFAs, as this is dealt with quick enough as is. ~ Wikihermit 02:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   . . .But we do need more bureaucrats at Changing usernames. There are requests from June 18 backloged. --Banana 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed, I intend to help at WP:CHU too, as I stated in my nomination. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 04:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   this RfA was not closed until almost one day later, we definitely need more bcrats. Qst 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose. Sorry, but bureaucrats should not make discretionary decisions on RfAs. They should not "weigh up opinions" or "take them into account". And their own opinion should have absolutely nothing to do with it. They should count votes, and promote accordingly - that's the only way to ensure that all Wikipedians' opinions remain equal, and bureaucrats do not become political power-holders. The principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is more important than Wikipedia is not a democracy; that's why I believe in wikidemocratism. This is nothing personal; I've asked the same question on every RfB, and will oppose everyone who gives this kind of answer. Walton^talk 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   (Changed to support) Walton^talk 08:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   Should not, do not is a pretty lame reason for an oppose, as I have reiterated before. This principle is widely disputed among the community members. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   My own opinion is exactly why I said I wouldn't have involved myself in the bureaucrat chat, because it's obvious what I want the outcome to be from the fact that I supported. I see that you want RfA to be a vote, but can you accept that Danny has been a good admin since, so really it might not have been such a bad call? --Deskana (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   You are right; Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. So why oppose people who have slightly different fundamental beliefs? — Deckiller 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not arguing whether it was a good call or a bad call. The call shouldn't have been made. And, to Nick, I know that the principle is widely disputed; that's exactly why I only want bureaucrats who share my view on it. I know I'm in a small minority here, and at risk of sounding like a total crank. But I am very worried that Wikipedia is becoming more authoritarian, and that bureaucrats (and admins) are becoming too powerful. I much prefer the way things work on the Spanish Wikipedia (where I also edit) where most things are determined by a vote, with users under 100 edits being excluded from the vote. Bureaucrats and admins have the potential to exercise great power, but they shouldn't; they should carry out the will of the community, even where they disagree with it. Honestly, I'm not intentionally trying to annoy people here. I'm doing what I believe is best for Wikipedia. Walton^talk 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

2. User still stands by the removed wiki-philopsophy. I don't want a 'crat that thinks becoming more a rogue every day is a good thing, as I don't think that is in the best interests of Wikipedia. GRBerry 14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   At the risk of sound a bit petty, I said rouge. The point of that "philosophy" was to illustrate that I believe the spirit is more important than the letter, but that the letter exists to be followed in almost all cases. Do you disagree with me on that? I removed it because it scared people into thinking I was a rogue administrator, which I am not. Are your concerns that I value the spirit over the letter?--Deskana (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   GRBerry, I think when he referenced WP:ROUGE that was a humorous way to put it (and probably a bad way to put it). From his response here and from all evidence I see, the only feeling he was trying to express was that he would strive to make Wikipedia a better place at every opportunity. daveh4h 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Regretfully oppose. Deskana says the bureaucrats made the right call in promoting Danny even though he agrees that there was no community consensus for such a promotion. Whichever way you slice it I just can't get behind that. Nevertheless I appreciate and commend Deskana's forthrightness in answering questions on the Danny RFA. Haukur 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose per Cecropia. That fact that he choose to re-run and failed to gain consensus and was promoted anyway seems off. I doubt it does much harm, but if you opt to stand the test of consensus it should be followed through. I also don't like the idea of crats acting as the voters and ignoring the RfA consensus. I do allot for leeway (see my userpage stuff on consensus), such as discarding troll/sock votes, comments strictly based on facts that turn out to be false, if damning info comes in at the time of closure (the RfA can be extended as a better idea), or outside consensus (VP/policy) and foundational issue considerations. Nevertheless, this doesn't really fit under that. Voice-of-All 02:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral