Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Sarge Baldy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Sarge Baldy
- final (7/3/3) ends 20:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hello, it seems that I'm requesting bureaucrat status. I've been an admin since early in the year and I think have been responsible with the additional powers granted by it. I don't see adminship or bureaucratship status to really be anything important at all so long as people can be expected to use that power reasonably and responsibly. I feel that I've shown that I can do so. Sarge Baldy 20:08, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Support
- Jwrosenzweig 20:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) Given recent volume increases at RFA, a new bureaucrat is a good idea, and Sarge is a good choice.
- ugen64 23:32, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC) - I suppose I should be fulfilling my bureaucratic duties more often, and VV: you've gotta admit, he had good reason for his remarks.
- ℛyan! | Talk 14:06, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Emsworth 20:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 00:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. -- Grunt ҈ 23:19, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
- Seems like a bureaucracy specialist. Fine by me. Kim Bruning 10:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
- VV 22:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) For now. His comments on the atomic bombings page (some of which are close to personal attacks) make me really question his judgement as to what is and is not appropriate administrative action (as well as editorial and edit history judgement). (Addendum: He has now protected that page and reverted to his favored version, despite deep involvement in the article. VV 23:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC))
- And no involvement in the conflict. And no particular preference on the version chosen, as personally I want the more factual information, which TDC and Get-back-world-respect can argue to figure out. There was over an hour between the page getting protected and me reverting to the other version. I fully intended to keep TDC's version and only reverted after Get-back-world-respect pointed me towards the protection policy, which suggests admins use the version that more closely complies with the Three revert rule. 23:24, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't take any administrative action at all relating to that article. When the page was protected, I respected that protection and didn't change anything on the page. I made some opinionated comments in the talk page, where opinion belongs, in order to help reach a consensus on POV. I wouldn't consider anything I said in the talk page to be a personal attack and I accepted the eventual decisions reached. Please source any allegations against me and I will be willing to offer my refutation. Vagueness I cannot defend against. Sarge Baldy 23:11, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough. You stated under what conditions you would unprotect the page, which were acceding to your demands about not "censoring" parts of the article you wanted to keep (inappropriate use of admin privileges). You blamed the entire edit war on me (edit history judgement). You seemed to be implictly calling me a "determined troll" and a "problem user" and were generally condescending [1] (personal attacks). You also were pushing the line that the bombings should be in Category:Terrorist incidents (editorial judgement). You also said there was a "consensus agreement" when there clearly was not one - in fact, most users opposed your categorization - a major issue for a would-be bureaucrat. VV 23:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Throughout that talk page you never cared to explain why you removed the lines in question, which to all appearances were sourced data related to the death count, information which is both factual and very relative to the article. Whether or not I consider you a troll or a problem user does not necessitate my administrative actions will be used impartially against you, nor does my openness of opinion on the subject hold any bearing whatsoever. I considered the primary edit war to be the omission of several lines, which you attempted to remove on four occasions without expressing justification for doing so. That people opposed my categorization isn't of any importance, and the "consensus agreement" was not to include such a categorization, which as I said I accepted. You also claim to attack my editorial judgement but I cannot see the inherent flaw in my judgement. Taking a controversial stand on an issue does not necessarily make it an incorrect stand, and I opened the topic for debate rather than start an editing war over the topic. Sarge Baldy 23:53, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Your statement said that I was not respecting consensus agreement; if so, cite what it is. This was the topic of the edit war - [2] [3], which was discussed in Talk; a few other lines got tagged along for the ride - added by GBWR as a "minor edit", restored from deletions by TDC, deletions which were justified in Talk - which had not been verified and contained questionable content such as the POV word wanton. You added your categorization two or three times, and left subsequent warring to "Style". Something being "your opinion" does not make it not a personal attack. VV 00:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I listed twice, the second with my justification on the talk page. It was listed 5 times afterward (once by 65.103.208.211 and 4 times by User:Style). These people were clearly out of their bounds in doing so by that point, but they seemed to have given up most of a week before the page was protected. Therefore, although their actions are equally condemnable, their roles were unrelated to page protection. Your role, however, was quite active and lead up much closer to lockdown. Therefore I found you as the highest risk candidate for disrupting the page on termination of protection. Your actions I considered problematic because you engaged in deleting relative, factual, sourced information, without listing the reasoning behind the action, a removal which I will stand by to consider censorship. Sarge Baldy 00:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Your statement said that I was not respecting consensus agreement; if so, cite what it is. This was the topic of the edit war - [2] [3], which was discussed in Talk; a few other lines got tagged along for the ride - added by GBWR as a "minor edit", restored from deletions by TDC, deletions which were justified in Talk - which had not been verified and contained questionable content such as the POV word wanton. You added your categorization two or three times, and left subsequent warring to "Style". Something being "your opinion" does not make it not a personal attack. VV 00:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Throughout that talk page you never cared to explain why you removed the lines in question, which to all appearances were sourced data related to the death count, information which is both factual and very relative to the article. Whether or not I consider you a troll or a problem user does not necessitate my administrative actions will be used impartially against you, nor does my openness of opinion on the subject hold any bearing whatsoever. I considered the primary edit war to be the omission of several lines, which you attempted to remove on four occasions without expressing justification for doing so. That people opposed my categorization isn't of any importance, and the "consensus agreement" was not to include such a categorization, which as I said I accepted. You also claim to attack my editorial judgement but I cannot see the inherent flaw in my judgement. Taking a controversial stand on an issue does not necessarily make it an incorrect stand, and I opened the topic for debate rather than start an editing war over the topic. Sarge Baldy 23:53, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough. You stated under what conditions you would unprotect the page, which were acceding to your demands about not "censoring" parts of the article you wanted to keep (inappropriate use of admin privileges). You blamed the entire edit war on me (edit history judgement). You seemed to be implictly calling me a "determined troll" and a "problem user" and were generally condescending [1] (personal attacks). You also were pushing the line that the bombings should be in Category:Terrorist incidents (editorial judgement). You also said there was a "consensus agreement" when there clearly was not one - in fact, most users opposed your categorization - a major issue for a would-be bureaucrat. VV 23:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Cecropia | Talk 20:19, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) A lackadaisical attitude in seeking a position of trust appears to have produced at best an apathetic result—only seven positive, along with two prior negatives, 3 doubtful neutrals and 2 comments.
Neutral
- I have either interacted with or know a bit about all the current bureaucrats, but I've never heard of Sarge Baldy before. It may simply be that the articles we edit do not overlap, but going through the user's edit history, I find many minor edits done en masse (e.g. adding categories, fixing errors) and the creation of short articles. While I don't want to oppose and have no doubts about the sincerity and dedication of the user, the lack of community involvement prevents me from getting a clear enough picture to support. Acegikmo1 23:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)t
- Nothing personal, but I can't get a clear sense of this user. –Andre (talk) 14:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I can't get a good sense either, and while I have also had conflicts with VV, the lengthy back and forth above hasn't inspired me.... BCorr|Брайен 15:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comments
- It has been said above that a new bureaucrat is necessary to help cope with the increased volume of nominations. But it seems that at present, there are eighteen bureaucrats. I just wonder how a nineteenth is necessary. (But I do not oppose the request—I feel that if an individual is willing to take on the responsibility, and is sufficiently trusted, then the power should be granted.) -- Emsworth 20:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about Sarge Baldy's understanding of the process since he says "a minimum of 3-4 months is also required before applying for promotion". There is no such requirement - only a recommendation, which itself does not have consensus. Angela. 17:20, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
- My mistake for reading that poll as one impacting official policy. Personally I strongly disagree with any requirement being set, so it doesn't upset me in the least to hear it doesn't. Sarge Baldy 18:28, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
Questions
Q1. For which positive reasons do you want to be a Bureaucrat? You seem to be backing into the request: "it seems that I'm requesting bureaucrat status."
A1. It's true that that is near my attitude; as I have said I do not consider it to be particularly major. As long as a user can be trusted to use a power responsibly I feel there is no need to restrict it. That said, I feel the benefit to Wikipedia is mainly to a) further diffuse bureaucratic privileges in order to lighten the workload on current bureaucrats b) help ensure timelier promotion of the userbase, following of course the standard procedures.
Q2. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A2. Yes, I have. After a week (perhaps more in the case of a late conflict or some other situation) if there is a general consensus the user should be promoted, and after ensuring the user has accepted the nomination, then there is sufficient grounds for promotion. Furthermore, anonymous users cannot participate in nomination. All votes count, regardless of the user's editcount and time on the Wikipedia. Most standards seem to be self-imposed based on common sense, rather than forceable policy. However, a minimum of 3-4 months is also required before applying for promotion. I will refresh myself on other fine points I may have forgotten.
Q3. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A3. I would confer with other bureaucrats before hastily taking any action that might be deemed controversial. I don't believe that a consensus has been reached if suitable controversy remains, and individually would err on the side of inaction in such a situation.
