Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Writ Keeper

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AutomaticStrikeout (talk | contribs) at 20:50, 9 December 2013 (→‎Support: + ASO). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Writ Keeper

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (?/?/?); Scheduled to end 18:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Writ Keeper (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Hey all, I've decided to try my luck at an RfB after seeing this thread (permalink), wherein it is suggested that there might be use for more 'crats in the renaming field. That's really the only field I would expect to be active in, though I'm sure I'll help out with uncontroversial miscellaneous things, and will probably ease into the other, trickier stuff at some point, too. When it was announced that usernames were to be handled by stewards, I figured, "Eh, not much reason for me to be a 'crat, then", but since that plan is indefinitely on hold, I guess there's still a need.

Some reasons you might want to support (obvious COI!):

  • I'd like to think that I'm pretty fair to people in general (who doesn't!); I certainly play Devil's advocate to myself in my head at least, and I at least try to see things from other people's perspectives, not just mine.
  • People (anecdotally) seem to like my reasoning on things, for the most part.
  • I've got a bit of experience with the whole username policy thing, having been active at UAA in the past (though not currently *shrugs*), and having helped out a user with an interesting username change request.
  • I'm pretty ready to explain my reasoning about things (perhaps too ready); I very much like displaying my thought process about my decisions.
  • Similarly, I would consider myself open to criticism; I'm not one to defend my argument to the death just because it was the one I first made.
  • I have a pretty thick skin, I think, at least as far as comments directed towards me go.
  • I'm a pretty strong believer in rules-as-limits-on-power, in the sense that things like admin tools and crat tools are not given to us along with a blank check to do whatever we want with them; our power has been limited by the rules placed on us, through things like defined CSD criteria to prevent us from wildly deleting everything in sight and the like. It's incumbent on us as admins/crats/whatever to respect the limits of our supposed authority, and not overstep our bounds. It certainly isn't a thought in my mind of going rogue with any tools, or even going particularly cowboy with them, so in that respect, I'm nice, safe, and boring.

Some reasons you might want to oppose (see, I'm totally even-handed and everything!):

  • As a consequence of the last bullet in the above list, I'm not quite as big a believer of rules-as-rules, which must be followed no matter what; I don't think that's a big issue in my running for 'crat, because none of the 'crat jobs contain the kind of rules conducive to ignoring (or, as I like to refer to it, "creative interpretation", subject to capturing the spirit of the law, rather than the wording.) I think that's a good trait, and at the same time, it's not one I would bring to the 'crat job, but 'crats are meant to be followers of the rules, and are meant to be as uncontroversial as possible (hence the name), so one might think that such an attitude is not desirous in a 'crat.
  • I really haven't been around very long at all; I created my account around two years and two months ago, and have been an admin for a little over a year and a month now. (The "year and a month" pattern is completely coincidental, if you're wondering.) 'Crats being people that need to be experienced enough to judge consensus accurately and fairly, some might justifiably think that that's just not long enough to be entrusted with even bigger keys to the kingdom. I don't, obviously, but your mileage may vary.
  • I'm not big on the RfA scene. Obviously, I ran successfully myself (where I garnered quite fair opposes based on relative lack of content contributions and length of tenure), but I don't vote on very many. I like to think that on those where I have voted, I've given policy-based rationales that I was happy to explain further, but it's still not very many. Since closing RfAs is one of the most important jobs of a 'crat (even though it's one I don't plan on participating in, at least right away), such relative inexperience could be a downside.
  • Similarly, I'm not big on the closing RfCs/AfDs thing, either. I have been known to close ANI threads and the like, but that's another animal entirely. So, you could say that I don't have much experience assessing consensus, and little evidence showing that I know how to do so. That's a pretty legit concern, really; of course I'd like to think that I've demonstrated sound judgement in general that will be applicable to assessing consensus, and that closing RfAs (the area where assessing consensus is important in a crat) is not anywhere in my game plan, but again, assessing and closing RfAs is still the most important function of a crat, so if this is an overriding concern for you, well, good on you, I guess.
  • I'm not big on content contributions, having only 3 DYKs to my name, along with a smattering of more minor work on assorted other articles. Again, I don't see this as a big deal (certainly less of a deal for a 'crat than an admin), but, well, this is still an encyclopedia. Make of that what you will.
  • I recently asked for a desysop, and then a resysop a month later. I'd like to think that it wasn't a drama-queen, throwing-the-toys-out-the-pram type move, but again, YMMV on that; I meant it more as a thing on personal principle, rather than some sort of protest, statement, or strike, particularly the principle of rules-as-limits-on-power. No sense in hiding the fact that it was, indeed, about the issues surrounding Eric Corbett. It wasn't specifically about Eric (we've worked together on things before, and I'd consider myself on friendly terms with him, but given my aforementioned lack of content contributions, I'd guess he's not my biggest fan, not that it matters); rather, it was about a proposal to institute a restriction wherein an admin could unilaterally block an editor for something that's a judgement call, with no avenues of appeal. In my book, that's just not cool: the combination of unilaterality, lack of means to appeal, and that it was based on something subjective was just too much, no matter who it's directed towards or how much drama it's supposed to prevent. It wasn't a power I wanted to hold, so I decided not to. (Though the measure didn't pass, of course, so it didn't really matter). It actually became quite a nice break; to all you admins out there, I highly recommend turning the bit in from time to time, just for a while; it's surprisingly refreshing. But, some might see this as the kind of drama-queen move that would reflect poorly in a 'crat, so I wanted to be up front about it.

Anyway, this isn't really a big deal for me; I'd be happy to help out at CHU/S, CHU/U, and the like should the community see fit to trust me, but if not, that's fine, too. One less job that needs doing for me, so no skin off my back.

Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:30, 9 December 2013 (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: They say it's 70% to 80% supporting that is the discretionary range for a 'crat, though I think it's more the low end of that range. Lower than that doesn't get promoted, higher than that does. In that range, one must balance the policy arguments on each side, the various concerns, etc., always keeping in mind that I am not the one who chooses whether they get the bit or not. My job is to interpret the community's will as close as I can, not to impose my will on an undecided community. If the community is truly undecided, I don't get to make the supervote; I just say that there's no consensus, and therefore don't promote. If you held a gun to my head to force me to say whether I would err on the side of overpromoting or underpromoting, I would probably say that I would err on the side of underpromoting. However, what I would really say is that I would err on the side of calling for a discussion. All that said, I don't have any kind of plans to be into closing RfAs. I mean, I did end up doing things as an admin that I didn't expect at all to be doing before I ran. I can't 100% promise forever that I'll disregard that side of things, so you shouldn't either, but it's not my gig, and really doesn't hold any kind of appeal to me at all.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A: Discussion, discussion, discussion. The infamous 'crat chat. While I know that RfA is a stressful experience, and that having the close delayed will be unfun for the candidate, I can't imagine that a poor close wouldn't be even worse; it's better to discuss it with the other 'crats than force a decision that isn't clear. (Of course, if the decision is clear and will just lead to criticism regardless, then I suck it up and close it; absorbing criticism is a thing I can do.)
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: Because I think I am fair, I think I'm reasonably versed in policy, and I think I have a pretty solid record of engaging others. I certainly like to discuss things (as alluded in my statement, I can be entirely too prolix at times). I try to maintain an attitude of respectful yet easy familiarity; I try not to appear either abrasive or excessively formal, which I hope encourages people to come to me with any concerns they have about my (or others' behavior). The quote on my user page is the one that I try to keep in mind, as far as fairness goes: How can you expect a man who is warm to understand a man who is cold? It's a quote from One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, which is a very interesting short book by the way. That's the attitude I try to keep in mind at all times, and it seems to me to be the best approach to fairness that you can get.

General comments

RfBs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. I have complete faith in WK's ability to handle both the renaming chore, and the other crat chores if he chooses to get into them in the future, with a minimum of fuss and drama, and a maximum of experience and clue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support No concerns, I think he'll make a fine crat. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Good work on usernames, says he will be focusing on that, and it will be useful, given the recent backlog. Dark Sun (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I have seen lots of good things coming from them in the admin role, and I have no doubt they will act with as much or more thought and care in the 'crat role. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support As I understand it we're expecting renaming to be transferred to stewards after SUL finalisation (?) but regardless, having just waited for around a week at CHU/S (no problem, of course) it wouldn't hurt to have some more 'crats. Best of luck benmoore 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Absolutely. WK has been a very sensible admin and another hand at the backlog would certainly be helpful. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per all of the above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Andrevan@ 19:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes. Writ Keeper has an excellent record as an editor and admin, and I think he's well-qualified for the additional (limited) roles of a bureaucrat. Besides, anyone who quotes Solzhenitsyn in response to an RfB question must be all right. MastCell Talk 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I've not got much confidence in the moving of renaming to the stewards (mainly on grounds of numbers and workload - nothing personal), but I do have confidence in Writ Keeper. Peridon (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Reasonable, clueful admin who should make a fine 'crat. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. By coincidence, I just observed a very nice demonstration of cluefulness at one of the noticeboards. I suppose that someone could nitpick over the promise to focus on the usernames, but the answers to questions demonstrate clear competence in the other crat areas. And that self-nom statement is quite a tour de force. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Writ has always been reasonable in discussion and in our interactions, and I fully expect he will continue to demonstrate that standard in his work as a bureaucrat. Writ doesn't strike me as someone who would spuriously promote someone to admin, grant/deny unreasonable username requests, or otherwise be abusive in this new role. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support good admin, no worries --Stfg (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support trusted user. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Writ_Keeper&oldid=585332582"