Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/AGK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] AGK

Final (3/5/0); Ended 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AGK (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - For a while now, I've been thinking how I can best serve Wikipedia in further ways, and Bureaucratship has increasingly seemed like the answer. I became an Administrator late last April (that's around 5 months with the Mop now), and since then I've also been elected to the Mediation Committee, where I serve as one of the most active Mediators. In typical obsessive style, I'd like to break my statement up into sections:

Why do I want the Bureaucrat tools?

To improve the encyclopedia, by assisting in processes that (in their own way) improve the encyclopedia. I believe that my services would benefit the pages that require a Bureaucrat's input.

What would I do with the Bureaucrat tools?

Use them, of course! I visit RfA on a daily basis (always have, always will), and previously WP:CHU(/U) as well, although I'm out of the habit. Visiting them (as well as WP:RFBA) to do a different role would be no problem. I'm not out to get the Bureaucrat buttons as some kind of "trophy" - my usage of the Administrator tools clearly shows that; instead, I'm requesting them to assist the encyclopedia - and that's that.

What does a Bureaucrat do?

What's my view of what a Bureaucrat is? Put simply, a Wikipedian entrusted with extra technical functions that enable them to put into practice the will of the community, as expressed through a relevant medium: those mediums being, for the "promote" button, WP:RFA; for the "rename" button, WP:CHU (and WP:CHU/U, if applicaple), and for the "flag" (and "unflag") button, WP:RFBA. It is this I wish to help out in: taking a community discussion, and physically carrying out the general agreement reached in that discussion (for RfA, whether that be to promote a user, or to close a nomination as unsuccessful), and I simply ask the community to grant me these buttons.

What is consensus at RfA?

By definition, it is a general agreement between Wikipedians that a user should or should not be given Administrator status. The Consensus is established through discussion, or "!voting" as it's often called. Certain arguments have more weight than others - in particular, opposes with compared to those without (sensible) justifications. It's the job of the Bureaucrat to determine exactly how much weight each receives.

Who interprets it?

In the case of RfA, a Bureaucrat: the 'Crat seeks the general consensus, and uses the technical abilities granted to them to put this consensus into being.

And it's this that I want to be able to do; all I ask is that you, the community, grant them to me: trust me, as you did with my Administrator tools. Trust me to be added to the current team of Bureaucrats. Trust me in closing RfAs, helping out at WP:CHU(/U), and carrying out the decisions of the Bot Approvals Group; and trust me to keep up the habit of getting second opinions in close-call situations, to continue the standard of friendliness and civility, as well as the willingness to fully and completely explain my actions, I have shown as an Administrator.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination below:
I accept. Anthøny 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC) It's clear this has been a mistake. Perhaps the most short-lived RfB ever :) anyway, thanks for your comments - this has definitely been educational ~ Anthøny 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
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. The criteria for promotion is, in a word, consensus - that is, there must be general agreement amongst the participants that the Wikipedian in question is suitable for Adminship. Naturally, there are the guiding figures that assist a Bureaucrat in coming to the decision of whether to promote or not: >80% support should direct the Bureaucrat to an almost certain promotion; <70% should direct the Bureaucrat, in almost every single case, to close the nomination as unsuccessful. Between 70- and 80% support lies a "grey area", in which case it lies to the Bureaucrat to determine, in their best opinion, whether or not consensus lies to close the nomination as successful or unsuccessful: that is, whether the majority of arguments that carry the heaviest burden of truth in them lies on the "support" or the "oppose" sides.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. There are two additional options open to borderline Requests for Adminship: firstly, extending the RfA (which, hopefully, will allow more comments to be posted, which (again, hopefully) will allow a larger difference between conflicting arguments to emerge, allowing consensus to become clearer). However, quite often this may not be the best option: if activity at the RfA was fairly low, then extension of the discussion may be fruitless.
The second option is the system of "Bureaucrat Chat" that quite a lot of us seen at Danny's RfA; I believe that such public discussion between Bureaucrats is the way forward for close call nominations (by that I mean in the "grey area"), and I'd have no worries about calling that in for an RfA. Alternatively, a discussion at the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard could also be used.
However, at the end of the day - if there is consensus (that is, general agreement between users, in that the majority of well-thought-out arguments) is to promote, then I'll promote; if there is consensus not to promote, then I won't. An increase in likelihood of criticism heading my way should not skew my judgement, nor stand in the way of consensus.
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. Knowledge of policy: as an Administrator, it is imperative that I am extremely comfortable with policy. Those of you who meet me around the various Administrator Noticeboards can no doubt vouch for me on this point, but really there is no sentence or paragraph that I can post here that can show, completely and absolutely my knowledge of policy - instead, I'd invite interested parties to take a look at my contributions and logs.
As for fairness and the ability to engage others in the community - I feel sure that my time on the Mediation Committee is a sure sign for these particular personality traits.
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. Definitely, yes. I already visit RfA (and browse WT:RFA) on a daily basis, and at some time or another I clerked at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U, so visiting those pages on a (several times a) day(-to-day) basis (as well as WP:B/RFA) would be a 100% yes.
5. Would you usurp a user who did not meet the requirements to usurp, however gave permission? If not, what would you do?
A.
6. An employee of Wikimedia with only 103 edits on the English Wikipedia who desires sysop access in order to do his job starts an RfA and you notice it starting to fail because the community feels it is improper to grant the user access in this manner. What do you do? Part 2. Same scenario but the RfA has gone the full seven days and it is obvious there is no consensus to promote but you must grant the person the tools anyway as part of their job due to a separate private request. What would your closing summary be?
A.
General comments
  • See AGK's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • Please feel free to raise any questions: simply add them below the default questions (1-4), and I'll answer them as soon as possible ~ Anthøny 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologies if my questions seem centred around RfA (e.g., associating Consensus with RfA). However, Requests for Adminship does appear to be the area of a Bureaucrat's work that most RfB contributors are interested in, so I've focused my attention there a little more. However, that's not to say that I intend to neglect WP:RFBA and WP:CHU(/U) - in fact, hopefully these can be just as big a part of my work as RfA! ~ Anthøny 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Non-vote, linking to the original RfA for this admin for convenience's sake. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. I've seen you around in various places, you'd be a good crat. Plenty of experience! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Seems like he knows what he's doing, and a little extra help can't hurt. WP:RIG. Andre (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support for the above two supports. Acalamari 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - I really like the answer to question 2 but I feel you need a little more mileage as administrator at this time. I'm only a n00b admin (since March/April) but am continually surprised by the myriad of unforeseen challenges I see on a weekly basis around here. - Alison ☺ 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Very Strong oppose AGK your a relatively new admin and I don't think your anywhere near ready to be a bcrat. ∆ 22:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Although I agree in essence, Betacommand, I still think it's a bit harsh to oppose strongly only per this. Just my thoughts... Giggy UCP 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. (ec with Betacommand) Unfortunately, I must echo Alison's concerns. You've been an admin since May (less then her), so I really don't think you have the experience for cratship. I mean, if a user signed up in May and put in an RfA today, they'd probably get hit by experience opposes, and cratship is a much bigger deal. The fact that I was against your RfA (although I don't remember if I commented, I think not) really doesn't help the cause here. I think one day you'll get through an RfB, but I think this is just a bit too early. Sorry mate, and good luck in the future. Giggy UCP 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose. Anthony, you're a great guy, but you're simply not ready to be a b-crat. ^demon[omg plz] 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I'm not yet uncomfortable with the fact that he is an admin, even after two long, hard months. — CharlotteWebb 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.