Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Andrevan

final (12/3/4) ends 00:20, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

This poll is closed. Please make any comments on the talk page.

I've noticed that we have a large amount of adminship nominations at the moment - 12, including two self-nominations. Since this is rather a lot of nominations, and it appears most if not all of them will be successful, I'd like to help lighten the load for now and continue to serve as a bureaucrat. I've been an administrator for a few months and I have RfA on my watchlist. I believe I have a good understanding of consensus, as well. Andre (talk) 00:20, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

At the prompting of ShaneKing, I'd like to address the common objection that we do not need another bureaucrat. You're right! We don't need another bureaucrat - but I believe one would be helpful. With 16 admin nominations (up from earlier), probably 13 or 14 of those likely to succeed, and a whole queue of good users on the talk page just waiting to be nominated, I think another bureaucrat could help speed things up.

Func brings up an interesting point, which is that I have voted not to enact a limit on nominations, and he suggests that this may be an instance of circular logic. Actually, I think that the current majority for not enacting a nomination limit supports the suggestion that a new bureaucrat would be helpful. I believe we should have as many admins as there are willing, skilled, and responsible users, and I do not see the wisdom in slowing down the process. If this means that we need more bureaucrats to deal with the load, so be it! Regardless of whether or not my view on admin nominations prevails, I nominated myself before the current poll due to the 16 admin nominations currently on RfA - so that poll shouldn't be much of an issue, if any. Andre (talk) 01:20, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:46, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
2. [[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 01:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Tuf-Kat 03:33, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
4. Very helpful user. I don't see how we can have "too many bureaucrats." There isn't some quota of bureaucrats that we can't exceed. --Slowking Man 06:48, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
5. Adminship should be no big deal; I fail to see how it's any different with bureaucratship. Johnleemk | Talk 12:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. Great user. ugen64 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. OK, I'm still not totally convinced it's really needed. But really the only reason not to promote is the risk of someone going rogue and the lack of process to deal with it. Perhaps the best way around that is to ignore it until it actually happens: if it does, there's likely to be more urgency in developing any process required. Hence, support (and don't take my comments as meaning I think Andre is likely to turn rogue!). Shane King 23:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
8. Of course. Lst27 (talk) 00:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9. Given his history of successful dispute mediation and successful adminship, Andre's a fine choice for overseeing a consensus and as such, dealing with the overflow of RfAs--which may or may not exist (Ingoolemo)? DG 18:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
10. Zchangu 02:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
11. squash 04:25, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
12. αγδεε(τ) 23:48, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Oppose

• No one likes Andrevan's idea but is not game to say so. I don't know much about him but I do know hand-wringing when I see it. All the Neutrals should be moved to oppose and this request should be denied. Backster 23:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  First of all, no one moves my vote without my say so. The neutral "vote" serves a purpose. Secondly, what "idea" are you referring to? func(talk) 23:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  Note that this is User Backster's first post to Wikipedia. RickK 00:09, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

  He signed up just to oppose me? I'm not sure whether to be flattered or crushed. All signs point to sock puppet, but there's no sense in bandying about accusations; is there a possible developer check for this? Andre (talk) 01:01, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

  Have to discount this vote. if "Backster" wants to oppose this nom, they'll have to log in under their regular user name. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. It seems we have enough bureaucrats right now. /Tuomas 11:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. No need. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:15, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

   I initially placed my vote under Neutral as I was reluctant to oppose because I have nothing against Andrevan; I just think that bureaucrats should be among the most experienced Wikipedians of all, as many of the bureaucrats are. I am now moving my vote to oppose. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 09:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

3. Wikipedians have clearly indicated the desire for a higher standard for Bureaucrats. This nomination attracted lukewarm interest (17 18 votes total), tepid support (11 12 positive, including a couple doubtful), and two opposes and four neutrals that doubt the basis of the nomination. Nothing personal against Andre as person, editor or admin, but this fails consensus. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I think we have enough bureaucrats right now. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. I agree. -- Grunt   ҈  01:16, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
3. It may look like a big load, but as has been seen on numerous occasions, it really isn't. Do we need another Bureaucrat? •→Iñgólemo←• 08:12, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

   Worthy candidate, I just don't see the need. We can always use more admins, while extra bureaucrats don't seem to be a huge benefit. If you can convince me why we need more, I'll support. Shane King 00:39, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

4. Moved from "oppose"; I think we have enough bureaucrats right now, but I'm not opposing Andrevan's nomination. func(talk) 01:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• The above Neutrals read more like Opposes. Please make certain you are putting your vote in the right place. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I think they're reluctant to oppose outright because they don't have any information that Andre is unqualified, just unnecessary. --Michael Snow 17:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I believe I was somewhat inappropriate in my comments. I apoligize, Andrevan. func(talk) 01:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but there is something about this that bothers me. Andrevan is currently stating on the talk page that there shouldn't be any limits to adminship nominations, and here he is using too many adminship nominations as justification for his being a bureaucrat. It strikes me as employing circular reasoning, and possibly suggests that he is being self-serving. I think we have enough bureaucrats, it is a very limited job, and I've never seen any shortage-problems associated with it. Bureaucratship, just like adminship, is a big deal, especially since there are no realistic means of censuring rogues. func(talk) 00:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • No problem, you're forgiven. :) Andre (talk) 02:02, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
• I don't see how a lack of a need for more bureaucrats is a reason not to promote those who are interested. If they're not needed, then they'll never use their bureaucrat powers and it will be a totally irrelevant promotion. If they are needed, they will be used. The only worrisome thing is that they could promote without consensus -- I don't see a worry that Andrevan will do so, thus the worst that could happen is that he would never get around to promoting anyone. Tuf-Kat 02:54, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Questions

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

   Yes. I believe a consensus of users for promotion to be 80%, or 75% in unusual cases. Probable sock puppets may be discounted if the vote is close, and if it's really close (say, 74.5%) the vote should be extended for a day or two.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

   The same as any other nomination - if consensus exists, promote. As I said above, if the vote is really close, I would argue for extending it another day or two.