Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Redux

Final (19/17/2) ended 17:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
WITHDRAWN

Rationale: Obviously, there is no hope of reaching consensus. It will not be even close. In light of this, I see little purpose in keeping this going and using up people's valuable time and effort. Furthermore, it has become clear that there is a strong community feeling that my decision of staying completely neutral is not ideal, since basically all the opposition listed was justified as "lack of activity/experience". While I don't believe that "lack of experience" (emphasis on the word "experience") is an accurate description, I get the message. I will return to a normal involvement with RfA and discussions, and maybe one day I'll resubmit for Bureaucratship again.
I would like to thank everybody who took some time to participate in this, regardless of which way you voted, and especially for the many kind words of support. Redux 17:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-nominated. No acceptance required. Redux 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Redux (talk • contribs • count) — The first statement to be made is that I've already applied once for Bureaucratship. To prevent this section from being too long, I would request that you visit my previous RfB → HERE. The points I made over there, I believe, are of paramount importance for the continued well-being of this project. I stand by what I said then — which is why I will also repeat my answers to the questions, and also include here the two extra questions that were asked on the occasion. But there are a few addendums necessary: passage of time and change in circumstances.

1) To begin with the obvious, and therefore, faster to say: my experience as an Administrator has increased in three months since then.

2) I'd like to clarify something which, for some lack of clarity, which was my fault, really, led to a couple of oppose votes in my previous RfB: Where have I been in terms of RfA? How well do I know this place? I have been right here. I visit the RfA page daily, or every other day, at the most. So why haven't I been voting? Because, since I was still considering applying for Bureaucratship, I decided to maintain a complete neutrality that would predate the request. During this time, I have voted in only two RfAs: two support votes, because the candidates were users I had the utmost respect for and confidence in. Their promotions were landslides, but my vote was a matter of principle — and since this may invite the question, I'd like to clarify that in the interest of transparency and ensuring neutrality to the community and candidates, if I happened to vote in an RfA, being a Bureaucrat, I would not be the one to close it. My knowledge of this forum is quite extensive, and it is combined by three principles that would guide me if I were to perform this job: integrity, neutrality and transparency. As I have said before on any one of these, there is no compromising any of them. Ever.

3) And now the most important part: Why have I decided to run again now? My decision to resubmit for this position was motivated by the events that took place a little less than two weeks ago: two Bureaucrats resigned. But mainly, the fact that one of those was Cecropia (talk • contribs). By reading my essay in my previous RfB, you will understand how important Cecropia was to Bureaucracy. His departure from it concerned me considerably.
Naturally, I can see the obvious myself: Cecropia has left for two weeks and RfA has not imploded. That's good, but the situation is still precarious. The departure of the one Bureaucrat that was consistently active on this forum leaves us even more vulnerable. My purpose is to help in providing a consistent Bureaucracy, that will not only keep RfA running (which the existing B'crats are already doing), but also ensure a key aspect for the smooth functioning of RfA: that Bureaucratic jobs are perfomed in a timely fashion. If we have too few B'crats around, and having lost the main one just recently, this could become an issue, at any time.
Just to complete the information on the change in status: the other Bureaucrat to have resigned, only a few days before Cecropia, was Francs2000 (talk • contribs), who was the last user to have been promoted. And, if we go back another month, we also have another Bureaucrat who lost this status: Optim, a user who was already inactive, and was demoted from the position.

For further information, and to complement the information, I would request, again, that m previous RfB be visited.

Support

  1. Support. The Bureaucrat situation appears to have changed somewhat since Redux's last RfB; a close look at his user/admin records lead me to believe he's a good candidate to wield +sysop authority. -- MarcoTolo 07:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. We need more b'cats! --Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 08:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support I feel that we need more bureaucrats in Wikipedia. The current number is almost embarrassing compared to the number of users and admins we have here! --Siva1979Talk to me 13:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. We need more BCs and he'd make an excellent one! Also, not posting on RFAs is, to my mind, not necessarily indicative of experience. I lurk here on a daily basis, but am reluctant to vote without actually perusing through somebodys actual edits (which takes a lot of time!). Luckily in this case I have already perused through his edits before (voyeuristic isnt it Redux? ;-) ), and I am convinced he'll be a good addition. The Minister of War (Peace) 14:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. You were slightly unlucky in your previous RfB not to get a big enough percentage for consensus; hopefully you will get it this time. We clearly need more BCs and you would make a great one. DarthVader 14:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Very Strong Support. We need more 'crats, and Redux has the right experience for the job. Oppositions based on lack of RfA participation create a Scylla and Charybdis situation - one could as easily be opposed for participating in RfAs because that might be claimed as showing bias. BD2412 T 18:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, he has addressed every doubt in his answering of questions, and has shown that he would make a very good bureaucrat, especially at the time when we need any. Also, I respect the decision to stay out of RFAs as explained, and hope that other voters will read it. -- Natalya 18:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Having gone through the comments below I believe that Redux has put a great deal of thought into his candidacy and has presented a very compelling case, particularly at a time when we require an extra bureaucrat or two. I feel that his attempt to appear above reproach in matters of bias is laudable, especially given the inevitable oppose votes it has engendered. Rje 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Though I have a feeling consensus won't be reached. Computerjoe's talk 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. He is a very good administrator and we need more bureaucrats. Carioca 20:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, this user is proven, and i think he wil make a great bureaucrat. RFA votes are a minimal topic, and he reasonably stated why he didnt vote.(plus i think most opposers only opposed becuase NLSE did) Vulcanstar6 21:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    If you're trying to suggest I gathered users to oppose this candidacy, or that because I opposed, others did (they are free to oppose of their own free will, not just because I did), this is not the case and is accusing me of something very serious. Please withdraw your comment above. NSLE (T+C)(seen this?) at 02:40 UTC (2006-04-15)
    As has been discussed on the talk page, I don't think that this was aimed at you NSLE - rather at the users that voted after you. Such a blanket dismissal of others contributions and a questioning of their motives is not helpful, especially as almost all of the other opposing votes including further reasoning, and risks pushing the debate from reason to emotion - but I wouldn't take it as a slight on you. TigerShark 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, it looks like he has the ability, and he is very communicative to other users. It is a bureaucrat's job to promote, not necissarily vote.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 22:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, more bureaucrats are needed, and he's not exactly going to abuse the powers. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Great answers. (^'-')^ Covington 05:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, Redux has a level head, thick skin, and the right attitude that we need in any bureaucrat. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. I'll give it a shot. JIP | Talk 15:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support, per my statements on his previous RfB; also, I think that the answer to the activity question is sensible and acceptable, in spite of it being contrary to my belief. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. Besides being a great admin, he's got what it takes as we can see by his answers. —Lesfer (talk/@) 13:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Nothing personal, but I do believe you should participate in more RFAs. NSLE (T+C)(seen this?) at 06:48 UTC (2006-04-14)
  2. Oppose per NSLE. Also, while three months is a respectable waiting time, I would have personally waited even longer. Xoloz 08:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per NSLE (taking into account candidate's reasons for a lack RfA involvement). I would have also liked to have seen more recent involvement in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, even if there was no voting activity. TigerShark 08:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. I agree with Xoloz, you should have waited just a tad longer, like three to six more months. Oppose. Mike H. That's hot 09:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Participation in RfA is a necessary pre-requisite for bureaucratship, as is some demonstration of consensus-reading abilities. There are few or no closures of xFDs recently, and little to no participation in the core process of RfA. I'm wondering why an editor who doesn't participate here wants to dive in at a high level. The stuff about completion in a timely manner is immaterial imo, since things are getting done in time as it is, the unwarranted compaints on the talk page about a few hours of delay notwithstanding. Generally, I'd want to see rather more demonstration of bureaucratic skills and uo-to-dateness with RfA before supporting an RfB. At least the answer to Q1 is right for a change. -Splashtalk 14:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per NSLE, sorry Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 17:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, sorry, but haven't seen him active on RfA before. Thumbelina 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    Humm, perhaps you guys have missed my comment, a little further down? Redux 18:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Sorry, I have to oppose. Redux has only 36 edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship [1], the last one being on February 5th (more than two months ago). With all the disclaimers that editcountitis is a disease and that does not reflect very accurately one's experience, that's too little. Also, in January, Redux was suggesting introducing a quota for the number of admins to be promoted with a "monthly waiting list". I don't think Redux has the necessary experience to be a bureaucrat. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    One of your reasons for opposing is a suggestion made during a brainstorm to come up with possible ways to improve Wikipedia?? I presented it as a possibility, in the spirit of a brainstorm. It was turned down and I didn't insist on it; as a matter of fact, someone pointed a "fatal flaw" with the idea that prompted me to recognize immediately that the idea was not good. It was a brainstorm, after all. Furthermore, you should notice that my activity at the time was shifted from the talk page of the RfA to Linuxbeak's subpage, which was setup especially for discussions on improving RfA. Redux 19:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    Good answers. I still feel however that more experience/contributions to the RfA-related pages would be necessary. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I feel that you can still contribute to RfA discussion and choose to remain Neutral on voting, but I also don't feel it's really needed to remain Neutral on voting prior to becoming a Bureaucrat. While I do feel a Bureaucrat should never close an RfA they have voted on, I feel that a record of active voting on RfA's would not be a hindrance to a potential Bureaucrat. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    Such a record exists. It's just not recent. For the reasons I've already stated. Redux 19:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Not nearly enough experience for b'cratship. pschemp | talk 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. In addition to what has been said above, Strong Oppose per my oft repeated standards: No More Bureaucrats are needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Not enough experience imho. --kingboyk 23:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, sorry. Insufficient experience. - Mailer Diablo 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, lacks experience. --Terence Ong 15:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    Terence, what made you change your mind since my last RfB? I was just curious, since I had your support then.. Redux 16:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per experience, though I'd be willing to reconsider if he decided to renom in the future. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 07:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per Splash.--cj | talk 09:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose: Per award and continued support given to editor with continued problematic edits. Netkinetic 12:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So you will oppose Redux due to your ridiculous and childish personal grudge against me? Really, kiddo *urgent* get laid and get a life. I do work on sports related articles and my "continued problematic edits" consist on disagree with some of your edits. Now I have problematic edits because some of them oppose yours. Can't you really see how pathetic you're acting? You're really not ashamed of yourself? Please, grow up, get a job, and quit trolling around. This is not healthy. Cheers —Lesfer (talk/@) 15:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for validating the "problematic edits" statement with that severe and unrestrained personal attack. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIV at your earliest convenience. Regards. Netkinetic 18:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Not really pushed to oppose because of the oppostion given, but I think he would make an excellant 'Crat, but to much controversy right now to support. Moe ε 16:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Really teetering on the edge; just a smidgeon more experience and I'll vote support. _-M o P-_ 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Carriage_Willy (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) whose trolling has been removed from this page has made altogether four edits, on wheels, I presume, one of them vandalism of today's Featured article. I have blocked it indefinitely as an obvious troll/vandal/Willy on Wheels account. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
  • I have to think about this one more before I decide, but I did want to comment that the informal guideline for renominations is, as I understand it, 1 month. This candidate waited almost three. NLSE et al may want to see 3, or 6, and that's their perogative, no argument there, but I don't think it's the standard (and they didn't say it was, I just wanted to put that out there. ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll make two comments here, addressing some of the concerns: 1) I have participated consistently in RfAs. Then, for some time, time constraints kept me away from voting (I still visited, but didn't vote, for lack of time to analize all that needs analizing). Then, I could have returned (to voting), but I made a decision not to, for the time being, so that I could achieve a neutrality that I believe to be essential not only for the job, but even for applying to it. I don't believe that it would be becoming for me to start voting heavily and then apply for Bureaucratship. That are all kinds of wrong messages that, I believe, could be conveyed by this (trying to make friends, trying to impress people so that they'll vote to support me, etc.). I suppose some, maybe many, might disagree with this position (as it would appear from the present oppositions), but I would like to be very clear that this was a deliberate effort in favor of neutrality and integrity. Why would I request Bureaucratship if I didn't care about RfA? It's not exactly exciting work. I'm volunteering to do it because I want to help the project further. 2) As for the period of time I waited to resubmit: in fact, I had no intention of resubmiting for this at all. The only reason why I did was because I was concerned about Cecropia's stepping down, in addition to seeing that the last Bureaucrat to have been promoted had also resigned. If that were to have happened only two years from now, then I might have resubmited only two years from now. This was a decision based on context changes. Redux 14:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    To exemplify, using Abramson's remarks above: if I had been voting on every single RfA (or just heavily) prior to this RfB and had: A) been supporting a large(r) percentage, I'm sure some opposition could arise claiming that I could be too quick on the trigger to promote, or that I was just looking to make friends that would support me later; B) been opposing a large(r) percentage, then it could be said that I could be exceedingly tough to delist "borderline" RfAs. It is impossible to satisfy all the possibilities. I opted, specifically, for complete neutrality prior to this RfB. No biases, either way, which is how I would like to conduct myself if promoted. Redux 18:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    You claim to be able to predict how people would have swung in the case you had taken one of two extreme routes. So you took another: to do nothing. Doing nothing is rarely a good way to achieve something. BD2412's comment is more than a little unfair on the opposers: had you had a track record of being regularly and carefully involved both in RfA and in the operational discussions around it, people wouldn't be able to oppose for that. Had you been doing something extremist, then, well, I imagine people would oppose and probably rightly so. But a considered, in-touch, reasoned approach, no matter which way you were notvoting, would seem unlikely to provoke much opposition. I do not see any particular evidence that Cecropia's stepping down has provoked any particular problems at present, significant a loss as it is. -Splashtalk 19:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    I believe you are being a little unfair, Splash. "Doing nothing" is hardly the description for a deliberate effort towards neutrality. I can see you would not have proceeded as I did. I suppose others wouldn't either. But that is no demerit of mine. I did what I believe honestly to be the best for maintaing a high standard to be able to apply for this job. It is not that I claim to be able to predict how others would have responded to a different course of action. What I'm saying is that, no matter how one proceeds, it is always possible to find a way to criticize it. To be perfectly accurate, however, I participate in discussions concerning RfA that I believe are important. If you would like a for instance, I was very much active during the discussions started by Linuxbeak to find solutions for improving RfA. I'm always looking to participate in discussions, whenever I notice that the discussion has a real shot at concrete results. Redux 20:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redux, you do know that there's such a thing as a "nuetral" vote, right? AFAIK, that's the best way to maintain nuetrality in RFA's without affecting the results, while making it clear that you're not trying to vote uninformed. It also really, really can help the candidate to answered unanswered questions, as well as bring up additional evidence in support of himself (or for opponents to bring up evidence)--trust me, they're a big help. Right? (Am I missing something? I hang around RFA's a good deal, and I don't really recognize you, so I'm assuming you haven't been voting, period.) So, I think the question stands as a valid criticism of your bureaucratship. (Now, I'm going to vote for you anyways, because we desperately need more b-crats, and it's not like you're a bad guy or anything, but I'm trying to elicit a better response.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence. Let's see, about the neutral vote I tend not to use it, since when voting, I tend to request any clarifications on the "Comments" section, and, although I haven't done it so far, if I were to add extra questions to a RfA, I would tend to add it at the bottom, following the standard questions. I do understand that many users prefer to cast a neutral vote, explicitly asking for further explanations, or awaiting the conclusion of any discussion, before they can decide either way, as well as voting neutral because they don't feel comfortable supporting but don't want to oppose either (when in this last situation, I would tend to abstain). For the second part: yes, I haven't been voting for a while. I have, however, participated in discussions whenever I spotted one that seemed promising. As I said, I had stopped voting (but never stopped visiting RfA) at first due to time constraints (at the office, I had this jurassic computer that had troubles with cookies, so I would not log in, but I always kept myself up to date with whatever was happening with RfA); when about to resume voting, I started considering applying for Bureaucratship (as per my explanations about the present situation in our Bureaucracy), and made a decision in favor of total neutrality and transparency. A Bureaucrat is not supposed to vote (or if voting, not close the given RfA), and (s)he is also not supposed to make any kind of judgement on either the candidate or any of the (valid) trends of thought that might be at work during an RfA. A Bureaucrat's job is to act on community consensus. Of course, I am not a Bureaucrat, but I believe that it is becoming of a candidate for this position to present beforehand the same kind of neutrality that would be expected of the position for which (s)he is applying — noting that a Bureaucrat is someone who remains neutral, but has a perfect understanding of RfA and how it works (or should work). It has been suggested to me (as in Splash's remark, above), that I should have maintained a level of voting activity, which is a valid point, of course. But I still believe that assuming this behavior beforehand is important for a serious candidate. Redux 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Since Interiot's Tool is lagging, and because I'm dying to try out the tool :-), here's the statistics:

Statistics for: Redux - Total: 5146 -
Main: 2477
Talk: 544
User: 206
User talk: 602
Wikipedia: 511
Wikipedia talk: 137
Image: 322
Image talk: 2
Template: 247
Template talk: 34
Category: 34
Category talk: 2
Portal: 10
Portal talk: 18

Total edits: 5146
Minor edits: 1972
Edits with edit summary: 4218
Edits with manual edit summary: 3756
Percent minor edits: 38.32% *
Percent edit summary use: 81.96% *
Percent manual edit summary use: 72.98% *

  • - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.

<BEGIN DISCLAIMER> Note that by giving these statistics, I am in no way, shape, or form implying either support or opposition for the candidate. As usual, the warnings about editcountitis must be repeated: these numbers are only that: numbers, and cannot reflect the candidate's ability. I offer them only to present the data for those who wish it to carefully evaluate the candidate. </END DISCLAIMER> Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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. I have. I would not dare requesting Bureaucratship without having full knowledge of the criteria. A consensus of at least 80% is required for promotion. A consensus between 75% and 80% may result in promotion, depending on the circumstances of the RfA, such as bad faith, or malicious votes, as well as the influence that certain votes, cast by users who enjoy a certain prestige in the community, can have on the general outcome of the RfA. Consulting with other Bureaucrats, especially while I am still new to the job, is of utmost importance, in my view. Promoting a user to Adminship is a big deal, not just for the user concerned, but for the community in general. As answered in my previous RfB Redux 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. A combination of factors: my best judgment and conferring with other Bureaucrats. If the decision falls to me, I will make it. I will take full responsibility for my decision and its consequences. I have never hidden anything on Wikipedia, and I shall not start with the things that matter the most. As answered in my previous RfB Redux 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
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 expect and accept nothing less of myself. People who have been in contact with me in the project know this. The very few users that I have wronged in the project, for any reason, have received a full-hearted apology. And again, nothing of a sort has happened since I became an Admininstrator. As answered in my previous RfB Redux 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on IRC or 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. Absolutely. I don't use IRC or any other means of communication outside of Wikipedia to discuss Wikipedia-related issues. Transparency is not negotiable. It is a requirement. As a corollary to this, I can say this: even though I am able to communicate in several languages, I do not post in any language other than English on the English-language Wikipedia. On occasions, I have been contacted in French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian on this Wikipedia, and I have responded to those all in English. I have refused to discuss how to best handle a troublemaker via e-mail, preferring to address the issue on Wikipedia talk pages. There is no compromising transparency. There will never be. As answered in my previous RfB Redux 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
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. The very purpose of my requesting B'ship is to help make sure that RfA runs smoothly and in a timely fashion.

The following are the two extra questions asked during my previous RfB. I thought that it would be important to repost them as well. Redux 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

6. I'm just curious, but according to Interiot's Tool, it took you over six months since you began regularly editing to edit a project (Wikipedia:) namespace, and in the past four months your project namespace has also been relatively low. Could you explain this? (I know that most users don't edit Wikipedia: much, but I just wish to hear your response to this.) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for the delay in answering your question. Well, there's a combination of factors involved in this. First, it must be noted that my "pace of contributing", if we can call it that, was never particularly high (there have been only a few periods when I was able to pick up the pace for a while). When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, I was doing it more like a hobby. But then I realized that this project was something really especial, and a priceless asset in a world where we can't even find out what the wheather is going to be like without providing a credit card number first. So I started contributing as a matter of principle. This transition did not happen as fast for me as it does for some other dedicated users that we have here, mainly due to time constraints. But once it happened, I understood that I wanted, and I should, do more for the project than just contribute to the article namespace. That didn't take that long to happen though, but I was never one to rush into something I don't understand fully first. As best I can remember, I was always bold in editing articles, but I took my time before getting involved with the other aspects of the project. Still, we are not talking about as long a time as six months, no where near that in fact. That it had taken that long for me to actually edit a project namespace, I did not even know. I do remember that by the time I had been here for six months I was already a big enthusiast of the project, so it might have been more of a coincidence that it didn't take five, or four months instead of six. And it could have just as easily been even less. Besides, content contribution has always been high on my list of priorities (and that, in my view, includes discussions on talk pages and user talk pages, which, as I said, I view as an essential part of the process of building this encyclopedia), so this is probably related to the reason why it might have taken me a little longer to get around to contributing in the project namespace.
And this is also the reason why my level of contribution on that front has dropped in the last few months: as I said in my statement, time constraints forced me to cut back on some of my activities, and I privileged content contributions (and discussions associated). Now I'm hoping to pick up on all of those again. I am, however, proud that whatever "real life issues" I have had over these almost two years that I have been with the project, I have never taken extended leaves of absence, never leaving it — I took my first wikibreak only in mid 2005, and even that was only because I went to Yosemite, and shockingly, they didn't have internet access in the park. Have I addressed everything? Regards, Redux 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. By the way, I left out a word in my question above (I know that most new users...), but I think you got the gist of the question. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
7. What is your take on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges? If adopted policy, is this something you would participate in? Do you think it necessary for BCrats to be involved at all? Are BCrats too busy as it is to take this on as well?
Philosophically, I have no reasons to oppose the bestowing of rollback privileges onto users who have already demonstrated their commitment to the community. In the talk page, it was suggested that maybe a procedure would not be necessary, and rollback could be an automatic privilege of all registered users after a certain number of edits. With that I cannot agree. Although rollback action can be easily reverted, unchecked access to this tool would make a vandal's life a lot easier, and that's never good. A willing vandal would not have too much difficulty working around the minimum number of edits. The points raised by Talrias over there are also of great pertinence, especially the part about the risk of compromising edit summaries. If a procedure similar to the RfA is implemented, however, there's the practical problem of making it almost as tough for a user to get as Adminship — although the general requirements would not be as demanding, and a lower percentage for required consensus could be set.
As for the Bureaucrats' part in this, yes they should be involved. Rights setting is the task reserved to Bureaucrats, so I cannot see how it would not be them the ones responsible for carrying out promotions. It's an increase in the work load, but there's no reason to believe that the Bureaucrat community would not be able to adjust. The only technical catch in the proposal is that, currently, Bureaucrats can only increase a user's access level. Demotions are a privilege reserved to Developers. This means that the proposal also involves an increase in the privileges reserved to Bureaucrats (even if related only to rollback rights), which is all the more reason for them to be involved.
Finally, for my part in this. As a user, I would be willing to participate there and vote. If I were to be promoted and become a Bureaucrat, then my pledge to be of service at the RfA forum would be extended to the new forum with the same diligence, provided that this proposal had become policy, of course. Redux 03:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

More new questions

8. A nomination discussion ends with marginal support. You consider issues of possible socks, meats, vote packing, whatever you feel may have unfairly contributed to the balance of the discussion, which way the wind is blowing, etc. You conclude that the issue is exactly on the edge. You contact other bureaucrats; they agree that there is no clear indication one way or the other. You expect roughly the same number of objections to be lodged against your action no matter what you do. Do you: (a) promote; (b) close as failed; (c) flip a coin; (d) pray for guidance; or (e) do nothing and let another bureaucrat make the decision? Or do you have an alternate strategy? John Reid 23:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
A.
9. Do you have the time and the desire to visit WP:CHU on a regular basis to process username changes in a timely manner? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
A.
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_bureaucratship_Redux_2_6e1e.html"