Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Flcelloguy

< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Flcelloguy

edit

final (50/14/3) ending 22:45, March 31, 2006(UTC)

Hello! First off, a quick note regarding the other two current RfBs: I’ve been thinking about – and preparing – this request for a few days now; in no way was my decision to run based on the addition of the other RfBs. I hope that your vote will consider whether you feel that I am qualified for this position, and not be indicative of any of the other requests currently ongoing.

I’ve been part of Wikipedia since May last year, and have been an administrator since August. Since then, I’ve actively participated in RfA, nominated several users, and participated in the discussion; I haven’t hesitated to express my opinions, yet have always valued and respected the opinions of others. I became a member of the mediation committee in September, and also have actively participated in many aspects of Wikipedia, including nominating a featured article and working on several others, nominating several featured pictures, helping out at what was formerly known as “clueless newbies”, the ref desk and the help desk, and writing several articles, several of which have appeared on Did you know?.

I’ve also been active in other aspects of Wikipedia. I’ve been writing for The Wikipedia Signpost since August, contributing over 50 articles, including covering and writing the entire Arbitration Committee election series last year. I’ve also been a member of the info-en team for a few months now, answering hundreds of emails, and am also a member of the communications subcommittee for internal communications. In addition, I've also helped out in various Wiki-organizations, formerly serving as a council member for Esperanza and also creating and starting a statistics tool (although I cannot take credit for lots of the amazing progress this tool has made since I created it; other great programmers, such as Titoxd, have done a significant amount of work and should be commended.) Throughout this time period, I've actively participated in discussions at WP:AN and WP:ANI, lending my opinion and helping out whenever I could. I've also become one of the few administrators responsible for the upkeep of main page images, including uploading some of them from Commons and protecting them and the templates in which they are transcluded.

As Wikipedia grows, bureaucrats also face increased responsibility. In fact, in a piece in last week’s Signpost highlights the growing demands of bureaucrats: in B.R.I.O.N., the technology report, current bureaucrat Nichalp announced that changing usernames, one of the current "jobs" of bureaucrats, had raised – and more than doubled – the maximum allowed number of edits from less than 7000 to 20,000. This reflects the growing pressures on our bureaucrats; not only will more requests with a greater number of edits to be reattributed be filed, but in general, the number of active bureaucrats has gradually become less and less. Currently, less than half of our limited number of bureaucrats are actively performing bureaucrat tasks, and of those, many are showing a decrease in contributions. In addition, as Essjay points out below, the placing of bot flags will soon be a responsibility of bureaucrats. With Wikipedia’s exponential growth (and reaching the milestones of 1 million registered users and 1 million articles recently) and entry as a top 20 world website, bureaucrats are expected to handle more and more roles and responsibilities.

Bureaucrats are trusted members of the community, and I hope I've outlined why I feel I would become a trusted bureaucrat. I've always come to Wikipedia to help this great encyclopedia; regardless of whether I'm writing articles, reviewing and editing other articles, or helping out "behind-the-scenes", I've done my utter best for Wikipedia and to help Wikipedia. With your support and vote on whether you consider me to be qualified to become a bureaucrat, I hope I can continue this. I appreciate your time and your support.

Please don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions.

Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Firm support for a good user. Rob Church 22:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support, as per David Gerard's Law. The reward for a good job is another three jobs, because you've done yours superbly. I don't have any indications to make me believe that you can't handle promotions or other bureaucratic tasks. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Dedicated and trustworthy, would do well as a bureaucrat. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - yes. The only reasons to keep 'crat numbers to a minimum are security, but there are no security concerns with this one. --Doc ask? 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per Doc glasgow. --TantalumTelluride 23:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Moe ε 23:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support. Great admin, he pwnz0rz. Or something. --Rory096 23:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. support per doc, the reason for restring 'crat status is primalry one of security, this user has proven more than trustworthyBenon 00:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. support. of course. pschemp | talk 01:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support We need more not less bureaucrats!! User fits the bill. Mike (T C)   05:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support - what a great guy. Having worked with him on the Advisory Council of Esperanza, I have always found him to hold the upmost civility and reasonableness. --Celestianpower háblame 09:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Consensus is about far more than throwing around numbers. What matters is that I trust Flcelloguy to make the right decision, whether that be on RfA, changing usernames or granting bot flags. the wub "?!" 11:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support can be trusted --rogerd 15:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Of course! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Friendly, busy, dedicated and exceptionally helpful to everyone from people making their first edit to people making their 10,000th. Will make an excellent 'crat. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I see no need to comment on the other two RfBs, since they both seem to be foregone conclusions to me. However, having run across Flcelloguy a number of times, I think he'd be a brilliant 'crat. The ~70% explanation he gave is unsatisfactory for Splash's reasons, but if I read it correctly (based on my experience with AfD), he's trying to say that (as Cecropia said), it's for exceptional circumstances. It should not be a common baseline. Johnleemk | Talk 17:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --605330 21:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Pete.Hurd 21:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. With such a strong history of positive edits... of course I trust him enough to be a B-crat. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support gets my vote of support. Gryffindor 01:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Always impressed me as a thoughtful and bright editor. The rollback thing isn't a big deal, it's not an active policy and at this point appears to be dead in the water. If it's brought back to life somehow he's easily capable of getting up to speed on it. (sidenote) I'd like to see "consensus is not a number" from Q1 put into practice more here. Rx StrangeLove 05:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support -- We do need more bureaucrats; this editor will serve us very well. John Reid 06:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support -- This user can be trusted with the added responsibilities. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I agree with Johnleemk above. I also think that just because the system hasn't crashed yet with the number of Crat's currently in place, does not mean that we couldn't use some more to help with the chores. This is a good admin who's proven his worth. --Mmounties (Talk)   13:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, I think he'll make a fine bureaucrat. JIP | Talk 17:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support all the way. --Jay(Reply) 18:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Flcelloguy seems to me to be the very model of what a wikipedian should be: hard-working, even-tempered, community-focussed. Bucketsofg 21:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Agree very much with the vote above. It is a bit sad to see that he is being shot down with some rather frivolous reasons. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Flcelloguy is a great user who would do good work with the tools. It's absurd to deny someone the tools because being an admin for seven months isn't enough time, or because we "don't need more bureaucrats." Ral315 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, good admin. We need more b'crats on the project. --Terence Ong 15:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. -- DS1953 talk 18:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Jon Harald Søby 18:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)##[reply]
  35. Support. IMHO, having more beureaucrats than we need is beneficial rather than harmful. Thryduulf 22:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Joe I 23:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, qualified, and a few extra 'crats is like a few extra admins... BD2412 T 02:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 06:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - David Gerard 10:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - After reading about the stress Francs has been under here I no longer accept the arguement that we have enough Bureaucrats. Flcelloguy seems like a good choice to be one.--Alabamaboy 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - BlueGoose 19:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - per all the above. GfloresTalk 00:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support – WB 05:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 12:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, shows good judgement and is obviously dedicated to the community.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Guettarda 13:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support -- Psy guy Talk 15:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per everyone else. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. My objection to both of the new bureaucrat candidacies, at baseline, is the same. Where do we get "70%-80%". It is 75% to 80% except under the most extraordinary circumstances. A prospective bureaucrat announcing up front such an opinion means either that s/he intends to change the standards or else doesn't know what the standard is. -- Cecropia 23:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies to responding to the vote, but I felt I'd make my view clearer here. I have no intention of changing any of the guidelines; as I stated below, the community is integral to RfA. However, the numbers represent a *guideline*; I cited 70% as the lower boundary of the guideline because consensus is more than just a number. Again, what distinguishes 74.9 percent from 75 percent? It's consensus that counts; citing 70 percent does not mean that I intend to change the guidelines, nor does it mean that anyone between 70 percent and 75 percent will be promoted or automatically failed. Each individual case is unique, and consensus has to be determined in each one. 75 percent has certainly been used as a sort of "cutting-off" point by the community, though, and I will respect that and take that into account when deciding consensus. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This dodges the bullet. Cecropia does not talk about 74.9%. He talks about 70%. What distinguishes 70% from 75% and 74.9%? A lot of editors, given the usual numbers usually participating in RfBs. -Splashtalk 04:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Crecopia. Also, Wikipedia does not need more b'crats. After making an exception for Essjay earlier today, I cannot support Flcelloguy, even though I like him. Not the best timing, here -- though I suppose candidate was under no obligation to consider other pending RfB's, he might have delayed. In any event, the fact that two requests in one day have mentioned the 70% lower limit has made me nervous. (My personal preference is that 80% should be the approximate minimal limit, with the mention of 75% meant to allow discretion, but I am "conservative" here.) Xoloz 23:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regretfully oppose for the moment. This is about the consensus issue: the precedent has been set and I'm not impressed by the statement that it could be lower depending on the circumstances. I personally think it's fine where it is and as a bureaucrat you should be able to say "no" to people who want adminship badly, and be able to stand by your decision. When the boundaries start being blurred, even slightly, it weakens the position of all the bureaucrats, making it much harder for all involved to define who gets adminship and who doesn't. -- Francs2000   02:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Opposition withdrawn, I no logner wish to have any further involvement in this discussion. -- Francs2000   12:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: my criteria include at least one year as admin, and I agree with above as well. Jonathunder 04:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Enough people are bandying 70% around that it has to stop. Current community standards do not reach down towards 70%, unless there is a major, mass, sock-infestation. Consensus is a matter of discussion, for absolutely sure, but 70% is the kind of "rough consensus" that can delete an artice: roughness is not the standard for an RfA. It is concerning that someone who would be a guardian of RfA seems not fully aware of that fact, especially in light of the discussion on Essjay's RfB. (Indeed, in light of that discussion, my concern for these answers increases.) The timing here is not the best either; the community treads slowly to make new bureaucrats and we do not need a rash of them at once: for each promotion there will be a learning curve, and inhomogeneity in the bureaucracy should be always minimized. -Splashtalk 04:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Oppose per my oft-repeated justification. Great user, but we do not need more b'crats. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't think that Flcelloguy fully understands the RFR proposal, which if he became a bureaucrat, he might be involved in helping with. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I apologize for commenting on a vote, but I feel I need to clarify this issue. The proposed change that Talrias is referring to is Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges, which is currently inactive, as it has neither been technically implemented nor gained widespread support. It is currently a proposed policy. I have participated in the discussion (most of it now in the archives) and have been against it, and have detailed my reasoning and objections quite clearly several times. However, if this proposal were to become policy and become implemented, I would follow the will of the community. I assure you that my opposition to the proposal will not affect any of my decisions as a bureaucrat, and reiterate that the community is the key to RfA and other processes, like this one. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Jeffrey O. Gustafson. juppiter bon giorno #c 18:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nothing personal, and opinion of Fl as an editor and admin are very positive, but for now I have to oppose per above. NSLE (T+C) at 00:43 UTC (2006-03-26)
  9. Oppose. Too new. HenryFlower 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose no need for more B-crats -Mask   21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sorry, but I don't think now is the time; some of the people above have reflected some of my feelings. Please continue with your good work, and I will gladly reconsider. -ZeroTalk 16:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose after carefully considering comments above. Derex 05:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I still see no need for additional bureaucrats, per my many other RfB opposes. —Cleared as filed. 12:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, I've given it much thought, I'm sorry. Hiding talk 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral for now. - Mailer Diablo 01:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for the moment--I'm still thinking about it. I have no reason to oppose, but this whole thing about determining consensus has put me off a bit. --Alan Au 18:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to leave this as neutral. I'm not going to oppose, because I believe flcelloguy would do fine as a b'crat. However, I'm not going to support because there's too much uncertainty over how to deal with the 70%-75% range. --Alan Au 22:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Too many reasons, i'm overloaded. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 22:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Weak Support. I am glad that he does know and recite the numbers written out on the guildeline (though you admit some disagreement with the lower bound). They should not be changes unless by consensus. And burueactrat judgement is key for that middle area as stated. While 70% a bit low, more solid numbers can write someone into a corner...though I would rather you follow the guidline's lower limit more closely. I also see little need for Bcrats, but with Franc's stress level recently, and low activity of many BCrats, it may be an acceptable measure. I think that Felloguy definetely does a good job meeting the requirements, IMO. Very kind, understanding, and willing to consider the evidence. Like Essjay, Fellocoguy, you may still be more useful elsewhere, so don't worry how this RfB goes anyway.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      1. On second though...that 70% is really just way too low to be acceptable IMO; only for very rare instances. Just stick with the guidelines I suppose.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

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 is the key to RfA. More than just a number, without consensus, the candidate cannot be promoted. Currently, our standards equivalates consensus as roughly 80 percent or greater; between 70 percent and 80 percent is usually a range where the bureaucrat interprets the community's decision, examining both sides carefully and with great detail. (I am aware that 75 percent is considered the "cut-off" point by some, but I have to reiterate that consensus is not a number. The percentages provided are a rough guideline; what distinguishes 74.99% from 75% ? Again, it's not a matter of counting votes; it's a matter of determining consensus.) I pledge to always look at RfAs carefully, listening with respect to both sides and doing my best to interpret the community's decision.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. First, the situation must be examined in great detail. Would it be a benefit to extend the RfA for another day or two? Are there any special circumstances that would necessitate the restarting of a RfA, which has occured, albeit rarely, in the past? Discussion with other bureaucrats would also be involved; each of us is, after all, human. Throughout the whole situation, I would show great respect to everyone, as I believe I have done throughout my time here at Wikipedia.
3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I have always strived to maintain respect, integrity, and fairness in Wikipedia. Throughout my more than 6 months as an administrator, I've handled multiple requests for assistance; as a mediation, I've listened to both sides and attempted dispute resolution; as a member of the OTRS info-en queue, I've replied to countless emails and some of my responses have been called the most professional and most helpful ever received by that person; as a user, I've always been here to help out and lend a hand.
4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?
A. Yes; bureaucrats are expected to adhere to strict community standards. Discussion with other bureaucrats would be conducted via the appropriate avenue, depending on the circumstances. The community is the integral part of RfA; as a bureaucrat, I will never "abandon" the community.
5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?
A. Yes; I'm on Wikipedia frequently. Though I have other "jobs" to do on Wikipedia, just like many other bureaucrats, admins, and users do, as a bureaucrat, I will never forget my obligation and commitment to RfA.
Question from NSLE: What are your thoughts on Can't sleep, clown will eat me's 2nd RFA? What would you do if you were the first bureaucrat to come across this situtation? NSLE (T+C) at 01:22 UTC (2006-03-27)
Can't sleep, clown will eat me's second RfA presents a unique case. While I hesistate to give my opinion because of my pledge, I shall do so because the nominee has withdrawn this nomination and the RfA has officially closed. The situation arose from a number of factors; however, blame should not be placed on anyone. Instead, I would weigh the arguments on both sides carefully and come to a well-reasoned decision, communicating with other bureaucrats if necessary; in this case, I would advocate a re-starting of the RfA, similar to what happened in Weyes's RfA in June of last year, which was restarted because of "voting irregularities". The restart of the RfA would also be "without prejudice" - the restart would not imply either endorsement or disendorsement of the candidate's qualifications in any way. Instead, the restart - running the normal time, transcluded on the main RfA page - would allow consensus to be determined without any outside factors that may have influenced the vote. RfA is supposed to be open to everyone; by garnering a large amount of votes without the transclusion onto the main RfA page, where all RfAs are supposed to be transcluded, the RfA was tainted. Regardless of whether the vote was representative of what would have happened had the RfA been transcluded onto the main page, the appearance of only having selected voters would make any results invalid. If the candidate was qualified, the restarted RfA would allow the community to gain a consensus to promote. I hope this answers your question; if it doesn't, please don't hesitate to ask for clarifications. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Flcelloguy&oldid=1082479515"