Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship which succeeded. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Andrevan

(78/12/2) - Final. Raul654 03:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrevan (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - Since my query on the talk page may have led somewhat to the current deluge of qualified bureaucrat nominations, I feel it would be bad form to not at least subject myself to the same scrutiny. :)

I have been a Wikipedia editor since June 2003 with over 11,000 edits, an administrator since September 2004 with a fairly uncontroversial tenure, and also an administrator over at Meta since May 2006. I nominated myself for bureaucrat twice, once in November 2004 when I was still a fairly new administrator, and again in September 2005 when I had some more time and experience under my belt.

It's been a while, but I think the time is right for a third (and final, I'd say, regardless of outcome) nomination.

With the exception of writing and editing the actual articles of our encyclopedia, the Requests for Adminship page has probably been where I've spent the largest chunk of my time and effort here on Wikipedia. From my own admin nomination, to the probably hundreds of other nominations (bureaucrat and admin alike) I've !voted on, to the several admin candidates I have myself (successfully) nominated, and of course to my bureaucrat nominations, I have had a great deal of time to contemplate that concept so important to our encyclopedia and its social structure: consensus.

What is consensus?

It's a thing almost zen-like in its simplicity and simultaneous complexity. Wikipedia:Consensus can explain it, but that doesn't really do it justice, or quite describe what we do here on Requests for Adminship. Actually, I'd rather take a look at the article in the mainspace called Consensus.

Consensus has two common meanings. One is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action. The other is as a theory and practice of getting such agreements.

Obviously this doesn't describe our process either, but it makes it easier to see what the whole consensus system is about: agreement. A bureaucrat's job is to figure out if the community, or that subset of the community that has weighed in on the page in question, generally agrees that something is a good idea. That something, being, of course, promotion of admins or other bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are merely executors of community will. A good bureaucrat must keep up with the talk pages and side discussions to keep in touch with the pulse of the community and its wishes.

What about the numbers, the percentages, all that pseudo-voting mumbo jumbo? Well, the numbers are confusing to some, but basically they represent the quantitative aspect of the promotion process. They are a rule of thumb to judge the level of agreement. 80% is just a jumping-off point to demonstrate the level of acceptance needed, but consensus is not contingent necessarily on numeric percentage. A bot can't say, "77% of editors expressed their support, but everyone generally agrees that so-and-so is qualified, and oppose comments were fairly noncommittal, so I will promote." The human element is needed for this sort of analysis. This is the job of a bureaucrat.

Is consensus the best system for selecting adminstrators? I don't know. Does it work? Yes. It needs to scale with the project, however. As Wikipedia grows larger, we need more trusted executors of community will to keep the system running smoothly. With several bureaucrat nominations on this page now, I think we're working toward that. I urge anyone willing and qualified to put forth a nomination as well.

None of this discussion is new, of course. In my past nominations, I understood the workings of the consensus system, and I would have made the proper promotions. However, since then my understanding of consensus has been enhanced. Before I knew about consensus, but now I feel that I grok consensus, and that is why I am again putting forth my nomination for bureaucrat.


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. Consensus. I would request that you read my statement above, as I've discussed this quite a bit. If someone needs further clarification or explanation, I would ask him or her to please go ahead and post an additional question or a comment.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Contentious nominations are just nominations, after all. If consensus exists, I will promote. If it does not exist, I will not promote. If the case is borderline, I will ask another bureaucrat for a second opinion, suggest a brief extension, or bite the bullet and figure out whether consensus exists.
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 think my record of contributions speaks for itself, but I would be glad to respond to any specific remarks.
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. Desire, certainly. My time to spend on the project varies, but in general, yes. I'd be glad to fill everyone in on my plans for the next year or so in terms of time to devote to the project, but suffice it to say I will have plenty of free time.
5. What about the issues raised on your last nomination? (Added by me)
A. Last time around, the oppose !votes felt that a) I did not explain myself enough when I was afraid of hurting others' feelings, and b) I posted notices on others' talk pages informing them of my bureaucrat nomination. I have certainly kept these criticisms in mind since that time, and I have grown as a person and as a contributor. I feel that I have addressed the first concern in my editing. As for informing users of the nomination, there are a number of users in User:Andrevan/Archive14 who expressed a wish to be notified of any further bureaucrat nominations. I do not really know what to do in this case, so I am going to wait and see what comments on this page say about the matter (hint, hint). I will however, place {{Rfb-notice}} on my user page, as this is according to the directions definitely allowed.

Optional question by DarkFalls

6. What is your opinion on the use of a vote tally on a RFA or RFB?
A You mean, the little bit of text that says (13/0/1)? I think it's useful as a thermometer of sorts of nominations, and removing it would be kind of pointless because anyone can just count up the !votes themselves. Andre (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from GDonato (talk)

7. You appear to be less active as an administrator than other users who have been considered for bureaucratship. Do you believe you would be active enough as a 'crat to justify giving you such a sought-after and important role and what is your opinion on the current number of inactive 'crats?
A Wikipedia is just a hobby (albeit a very interesting and important one), and I do have a busy real life. That said, I've never actually left Wikipedia for an extended period, unlike many admins and bureaucrats. I think I would be quite a bit more active than the current set of "dormant" bureaucrats, and do my part. Andre (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Question from Walton:

8. Given that Danny's RfA closed at only 68% support, with over 100 good-faith opposes from established users, do you believe it was right for him to be promoted? I'm not asking for an opinion on Danny himself, but on the bureaucrats' closure of that RfA, which ignored 100 people's opinions given in good faith. Waltontalk 14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
A I believe that the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat page shows a lot of thoughtful, reasoned discussion. Were I a bureaucrat during the nomination, discussing on that page, I would have agreed with Taxman and Warofdreams that consensus didn't really exist to promote. That said, I do not think it was wrong for him to be promoted, in keeping with WP:IAR, WP:BOLD, Danny's standing as a contributor (and UninvitedCompany's comment that he could probably just have asked for it back), and the important maxim that adminship is no big deal. Although I personally would not have acted to promote, I accept the decision that was made, like the bureaucrats on that page and I think the community at large. I don't see how having a user like Danny as an administrator could cause harm to the encyclopedia. Andre (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Andrevan, with respect for your reasoned response, WP:IAR and WP:BOLD do not really deal with the realities of a lot of Wikipedia. Though User:Jimbo swears by it as a founding principle of Wikipedia, he sometimes doesn't agree with it himself. I recall when he affirmed the 3RR rule as important. I can think of all kinds of good reasons to break 3RR in good faith, but try breaking it in good faith and see where it lands you. What I'm saying is that, at times, WP:IAR is the greatest piece of crap. If we all have the option to "Ignore All Rules," than the rules should not be made in the first place. Wikipedians want their bureaucrats to be trustworthy, even when they disagree with the result. WP:IAR is the last excuse I would ever want a bureaucrat to use in closing an RfA or RfB. -- Cecropia 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
IAR has an important meaning to me, which is: if what you're doing is definitely the right thing for improving the encyclopedia, but is contrary to the letter of the rule which governs it, do it anyway. That is how I feel Rdsmith4 acted in the Danny nomination, and why I support and accept his decision even though I do not agree consensus existed. I'm certainly not saying I would use IAR as an excuse to promote.
Anyway, we could debate IAR for a long time, but I think the concept of IAR is not really related to the question that Walton asked. It deals with the Danny nomination, and my view on that in a nutshell is: "I don't feel consensus existed, but the promotion was in-line with Wikipedia's core principles of working for the good of the encyclopedia regardless of what the rules say."
In other words, I would not have made the same call that Rdsmith4 did, but I respect it.
Side note: There are plenty of good faith ways to break 3RR! See WP:3RR#Exceptions.
(Another side note: These bits on separate lines were added one at a time, see the page history. I figured it didn't make sense to sign 5 times.)
Andre (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There have been a number of other cases besides Danny where an administrator wass approved with less than 70% support. In at least a couple of these cases, the oppose votes, while outnumbered about 2:1, were quite vociferous in their lack of trust for the candidate. Do you think that IAR was well-applied to these cases? User:Argyriou (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I would need to see/know specifics, but in general probably no. The Danny nomination was a special case. Andre (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Specifics: Carnildo. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

Question from Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC):

10. In the past, I have noted a concept in the WT:RFA archives somewhere about "scientific scaling" of RfAs in that(here), in general, it would seem that the community thinks an individual member may have different personal standards as to what they expect of a candidate, but that it would be preferable that a given person treats candidates consistently with their standards. In some cases, there are often mutterings about people moving the bar lower because they are friends with a given candidate or conversely some people can suddenly raise the bar for some guy that they don't like. People are always grumbling about RfAs being popularity contests and so forth. How would you deal with a case, for instance, where some person perhaps got 80-85% in raw numbers, but this occurred because a group of people went soft on them for some reason (eg when some person only made 800 article edits and/or only wrote 1 stub or had only been around for 2 months - but some people who have soft spot waived their usual requirements for 2000 edits, multiple non stubs, 5 months etc etc,). Conversely, what would you do if they were below the grey zone, but had a whole group of people who suddenly used uncharacteristically high standards (eg when they oppose citing less common reasons, or selectively quoting 1FA or lack of article writing or vandal fighting, when they usually support people at a much lower bar) - This could be because the people are either "under-rated" and "unfashionable" as well as rank undisguised retaliation against an argument somewhere. What is your opinion on calibrating the opinions in such grey cases with unusual supports/oppositions? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
A I don't think users' usual standards have any direct effect on the consensus. If generally users seem to agree with something that isn't what they have historically agreed with, it's really not my role to say, "But that's not what you thought last RfA, be more consistent." Users may oppose or support for any reasons they wish (as long as they are not false or otherwise invalid), and those reasons can be as nitpicky or as forgiving as they want. (That said, I do think there is a phenomenon whereby other users take their cues from earlier !votes. For example User A supports because he is impressed that the candidate got User B to support despite his usual high standards, or something. So in a way the scaling you describe does occur, absent of bureaucrat intervention.) As far as popularity contests, "it's not what you know, but who you know" sometimes in life, and we're just going to have to assume good faith and roll with it. Generally I think Wikipedia is a mature community, and editors don't just oppose or support for petty personal reasons. When it comes to outright retaliation ("You !voted to delete my article so I'm opposing your adminship"), those sorts of comments are weighed lower than legitimate concerns. Andre (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Question from Voice-of-All

11. What do you think of User:Voice of All/Consensus? Voice-of-All 03:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
A It raises a few important issues, many of which I agree with, although there seems to be sort of a skew toward AfD discussions. Homogeneity is definitely something to take into account when evaluating RfA consensus. Lots of opposes citing the same concern carry a little more weight than less unified, individual opposes. In the case of last minute information (although I certainly think this applies more to AfDs) an extension might be merited. I also agree that if a comment is simply untrue factually, and this has been made clear on the nomination, it is weighed less. Again, more for AfDs, but valuable thoughts. Did you have a more specific aspect that you'd like me to comment on? Andre (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well it was mainly about consensus in general, not RfAs, so some stuff may not apply as much here. My main issue though, it with the balance between the RfA and relevant consensus (or majority), and the opinions of the crats themselves. Voice-of-All 04:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I've made clear that bureaucrats' purpose is to carry out the collective community will. Individual bureaucrats' opinions of users are irrelevant; indeed, voting on an RfA AND closing it is unacceptable for a bureaucrat, as it is a conflict of interest. Andre (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional (hypothetical) Question from Anonymous Dissident

12. – Hypothetical situation: An RFA is ready for closure. It has 71% support, and 29% oppose. You know the candidate, and both like them as a person, and believe they would make a good admin. All things considered, what would you do as a crat in this situation of RFA closure?
A: All things really can't be considered in a case like that, as I have no access to support and oppose arguments. It doesn't matter what I think about the candidate. Andre (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats close to exactly the answer I was looking for. As I said on Ral's RFB, this question was deliberately vague, and you have picked that up, as well as noting that what you think doesnt matter. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Question from Bishonen

13. This is a complementary question to your dialogue with Argyrio under Question 8, given here because I'm not sure you'd see a small addition up there:
There have been a number of other cases besides Danny where an administrator was approved with less than 70% support. In at least a couple of these cases, the oppose votes, while outnumbered about 2:1, were quite vociferous in their lack of trust for the candidate. Do you think that IAR was well-applied to these cases? User:Argyriou (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I would need to see/know specifics, but in general probably no. The Danny nomination was a special case. Andre (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Specifics from me: Carnildo 3. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
I do not believe consensus existed upon reviewing that RfA. I don't know much about the ArbCom issues, etc, but I do not see consensus to promote on that page. Certainly there's no possible use of IAR here, especially since it appears that Carnildo was embroiled in a lot of process and policy. Andre (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

  • I was wondering if anyone had any input on the iffy bits in my question #5, above. Andre (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Because nobody has offered an opinion either way, I have left 10 user talk page notes to users who, in 2005, expressed a desire to be notified of further nominations. Andre (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - yep, this user looks good to me. I'd like to see him use the extra tools. I wish him luck on his 3rd RFB nom. Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Lots of experience, he could use the tools. —« ANIMUM » 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Eeks, has it really been so long since the last nomination? Couldn't make up my mind then, but of the four candidates here, Andre is the only one I can support without reservations. I am very happy with his statement about consensus, and, of course, he's been here forever and has the trust of the community. Dmcdevit·t 02:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Very strong support why not? I've done this on the other three. Acalamari 02:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Very strong support- the same reasoning as Dmcdevit. No reservations. Keegantalk 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. A well presented nomination, and I see no reason to oppose. - Zeibura (Talk) 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Obviously qualified.--Húsönd 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support- I am very impressed by his statement about consensus, which I totally agree with. He's a great user and will make a great bureaucrat. Eddie 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Thoughtful communicator who understands consensus. I trust Andre and believe he will be a great bureaucrat. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support A non-controversial admin who's willing to help out with the boring task of renames. Seems good enough for me :-) ~ Wikihermit 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Andrevan seems to be the sort that will make a fine bureaucrat. Captain panda 04:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support we need more crats and Andrevan seems to have more than enough experience. DarthGriz98 04:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. — Deckiller 05:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. No reason not to promote... --Dark Falls talk 05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Plenty of experience and rarely goes rogue from my experiences. On top of that, as stated, he seems to be someone who will do the boring, mundane crap. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Are they giving peanuts this week or something? It is the only reason why there are some many Requests for Barbequeing this week... anyways, back on topic. I've seen Andrevan around , and I haven't seen any issues to make me pause. While this has been the third RfB for him, the previous ones were a long (and I do mean long) time ago ago, so they can't be held against him. Overall, there are reasons to support, and no reasons to oppose. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Nearly three years ago you welcomed me to Wikipedia. Thank you. You're an exemplary contributer and will make a fine bcrat. Feezo (Talk) 07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support — More bureaucrats are needed. This user appears trustable. Matthew 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Good self-nom, looks well-qualified. Moreschi Talk 09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Andre's shown dedication to the project, and would be a fine crat. Ral315 » 13:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support (Bureaucracy for everyone!) Bucketsofg 13:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - I like your personal statement and general answer to the questions - it is good to see you have learnt the lessons of your previous RFB. I think you would make a good bureaucrat and have the right attitude and experience for the position. Camaron1 | Chris 14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support - A very experienced Editor and administrator..I doubt it that he will abuse the tool and we can't emphasize enough that we need a few more good Bureaucrats...--Cometstyles 14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. A bit impatient sometimes but looking in retrospect he is a competent sysop and an asset for the encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support I don't have the same "name recognition" of Andre as for the other candidates, but I like his essay about consensus and I believe that he does "grok" it. Shalom Hello 15:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Terence 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support, no reason not to. Neil ╦ 15:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support why not? we need more crats Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support I've never met Andre, but he seems like a fine and reliable fellow. —Anas talk? 17:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Trusted user with firm understanding of the RFA process. Borisblue 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. A little inactive with the tools, yea, but he been in the project for about three years already, and a admin for over two years, and I trust him on reading consensus in RFB. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support We need more bureaucrats, and he will certainly do. EdJohnston 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. I absolutely trust Andre, and I speak from my own experience. All the best! Phaedriel - 19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support; yep. A very fine candidate for this job. First bumped into Andre three years ago, and he's still every bit as sensible now as he was then. Antandrus (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support A very rare support vote for crat.--MONGO 21:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support - Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats. Turning down a trustworthy, qualified volunteer would be insane. -- Schneelocke 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Your questions satisfy me, and since you're before my time, i can safely assume you know wikipedia well. Wizardman 23:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. Seems like a person who will act wisely. -- DS1953 talk 00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  39. I hereby declare my approval for my soon-to-be CMU comrade! Scobell302 01:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Certainly been around for long enough to know what he's doing. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Will be a good bureaucrat. --Banana 01:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support OK, probed around enough, looks good to me. Voice-of-All 04:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support It is time to give him the additional tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support per nom statement and answers to questions. Mike Christie (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support yeah ~ Infrangible 04:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support without a doubt one of the best people here. Tony the Marine 07:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support One of the most experienced, dedicated, reasonable, and fair-minded editors on Wikipedia, easily. I've known him since 2000, and he's one of the few people I've known that long who I've never once seen lose his temper, make stupid or hasty decisions, or abandon the insane level of commitment he has made to projects like Wikipedia. He's a goddamn machine. If you're not going to make full use of him, you have a duty to disassemble him and put all his spare parts to good use. :E -Silence 08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support So much has been made of Andrevan's brief exposition on the nature of the consensus mechanism we use here at Wikipedia. I don't see why this is seen as dangerous. "Oh no! He's trying to expand the bureacratic powers!" I think that that's much too alarmist and paranoid a conclusion. Thinking about these sorts of things is a good sign, not a bad one. Andrevan here has been patrolling the mean streets of Wikipedia for years, armed (seemingly, for this is all he uses most of the time) only with a cool collected spirit and reasoned, calm arguments. If anybody could help Wikipedia more as a bureacrat it's Andrevan here. D. G. 08:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Note: This account is now indefinitely blocked. Chick Bowen 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Recently unblocked by me, see his talk page. Just a silly user, but a friend of mine. Andre (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support - Answers seem fine, strongly supported by Phaedriel - in general should be no big deal. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support I have no qualms, and believe Andre will use the tools wisely, accurately, and precisely. Jmlk17 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. I trust him, ergo, he gets my support. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 21:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support I have complete faith in Andre. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-9 22:12
  53. Support We need more crats and he will surely do a good job. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. Andre is mature, responsible, intelligent, and trustworthy. Will make a great bureaucrat. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support. Trustworthy. One of the best editors I know. K1Bond007 00:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support per Dmcdevit. --Quiddity 01:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support. Good guy, easily trusted with bureaucrat buttons. Rebecca 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support. A level-headed, well-versed admin. I'm not concerned with his recent absence from RfA--things haven't really changed here since 2005. Owen× ☎ 02:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  59. If there has been significant change in RfA culture, it has been for the worse. The procedure, however, has not changed significantly. I see no reason to oppose, and I cannot think of many people more qualified than Andre. Johnleemk | Talk 07:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support. Appears to be a qualified candidate. Cla68 07:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support. in particular due to Q12 -- Agathoclea 08:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support Mature and level headed contributor. I hardly ever comment in these things, but on this occasion I doo feel the candidiate would be very good crat. Giano 09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support Merovingian (T, C, E) 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support and good luck :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support, found good crat candidate! Can't figger how all little candidates think. Little Andre good answers to questions, not so much foot-shuffling, 'Zilla can figger! bishzilla ROARR!! 12:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
  66. Support seems thoughtful, capable, hopefully can handle the stress, Modernist 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support John254 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support This user looks calm, disinterested, trustworthy, and capable of applying good sense when assessing consensus. Sluzzelin talk 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support. Overall, Andrevan is quite the valuable contributor, and if he's wanting to take on this extra responsibility, I feel he is fit to do so. -- Zanimum 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support Great editor, and his edits say it all! Politics rule 18:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support - Wikipedia needs more b'crats, and Andrevan looks like a editor who could handle the job. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support. I would prefer more recent activity but then we have a lot of crats who go the tools a long time ago who I barely know anyway. Looking through Andre's contribs he looks sensible and his answers to questions seem acceptable. As a former mediator he has showed a good approach to conflict and I am convinced he would handle any discussion over controversial RfAs/RfBs well. I think he understands what the job is about and will only promote where there is a consensus to do so. WjBscribe 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support. Reading through all the questions only cemented my opinion that you only need more tools at your disposal. Comic 23:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support I think you answered the questions good enough to gain my support. :) FunPika 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support. No concerns with Andrevan being promoted to bureaucrat at this time. No reason to believe his use of tools will be anything other than proper and sensible. Nick 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support - Very trustworthy and deserves a fair shot at 'cratship. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support. I like the answer to question 12. --Kbdank71 01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support. Andre is active enough and intelligent enough to be trusted with the bureaucrat tools. Rarr 02:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Sorry, but Oppose. You're going to hate the reasoning, but the truth is we don't need another 'crat to close RFAs. Of the three 'crat task, this one is always done on time. ~ Wikihermit 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
See your point Wikihermit, but you are slightly wrong -- its not always on time. I do see your point though. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to help with changing usernames and bot flags as well, but those processes don't require as much explanation, so I sort of glossed over them. :) Andre (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose With great respect for a wiki-veteran, I'm left a little uneasy about the candidate's "zen philosophy" of consensus. I can't call it inaccurate: heck, not being able to "call it" anything is part of its zen character, I suppose. ;) Still, especially given that there are other fine candidates stepping forward about whom I am certain, the lack of clarity (as expressed to the outside world, anyway) inherent in the candidate's stand leaves me wanting more. One might call this a "zen" oppose, in fairness. Xoloz 03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If you're wanting more, fire away! I can answer questions to clarify my stance, so long as they are not ";What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Andre (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Issues have been clarified sufficiently such that I withdraw my oppose. No comment, otherwise, for now. Xoloz 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, reluctantly. I read your statement above several times, and I can only come away with the idea that you support considerably increasing the bureaucrats' discretionary range. I support the bureaucrats having a certain leeway, but I'm uncomfortable with increasing it for any but the most difficult and controvertial RFAs (3-5 per year). Discretion is a feather on the scales, not a finger. AKAF 09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    I do not support increasing discretionary range beyond current levels. I am describing the consensus system currently in place, as I understand it, and as it is implemented in the RfA process by our current bureaucrats. Andre (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    If that's how you want to slice it, then I think that you understand the current discretionary range to be broader than my understanding of it. In my opinion bureaucratic discretion mostly isn't necessary, but your answers to the questions above makes me think that you'll want your finger on the balance in more cases than I'm comfortable with. Your "77%" answer is (for me) an example of this attitude. AKAF 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Being a bureaucrat should be a job essentially any regular old Wikipedian could do. We should have clear and simple guidelines for the job and no need for mysticism. Bureaucrats should form a, well, bureaucracy (though hopefully an efficient one), not a Guardian Council. The candidate's statement leaves me feeling that his views on the job are too distant from mine. Kudos, however, on running for the job and encouraging others to do so. Haukur 11:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I agree with you that bureaucrats are not special or magical, they're just trusted users who understand when a bunch of people agree about something. However, RfA is not a vote or a supermajority, and RfA couldn't really be handled by a bot or a vote-counting user (at least, under the current system... if you're proposing reform, that's a discussion for another page). See Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority. Andre (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    For the record, yes, I would like a move towards the German system but I do realize that we are not there yet and that in the meantime we still have to promote new bureaucrats. As to "trusted users who understand when a bunch of people agree about something" I think that's already a role that's too nebulously defined for anyone to do consistently and well but several of the bureaucrats understand their remit as going well beyond that and into discounting opinions they disagree with and judging candidates on their merits. Your statement leaves me unconvinced that you would refrain from this. I find this scenario you propose particularly outlandish: "77% of editors expressed their support, but everyone generally agrees that so-and-so is qualified, and oppose comments were fairly noncommittal, so I will promote." I don't see a situation where everyone agrees that a candidate is qualified but 23% of voters oppose her candidacy as possible. Haukur 13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Weak Oppose. Reference to IAR and BOLD in answer to my optional question really worry me. IAR should never be a factor in closing contentious RfAs. The useful function of IAR is to allow process to be circumvented in clear-cut, uncontroversial cases, not to provide a license to ignore consensus. Waltontalk 08:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    I stated above, in response to your question, that when the Danny RfA was closed by Rdsmith4, I believe he felt it was a clear-cut, obvious decision, of the sort that falls under the domain of those policies. I would like to stress that I have no intention of using either policy to support my findings if I become a bureaucrat. I say this not to convince you to change your status of oppose, but to clarify for the record and for others reading your comment, as I feel you have somewhat misrepresented my viewpoint in your comment. Andre (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I misunderstood you slightly. I still can't really support based on your answer, but I have changed to Weak Oppose, as I recognise that you would not routinely invoke IAR in closing RfAs. I apologise if I gave the impression that you would abuse the bureaucrat tools - I certainly don't think that. This request will probably pass, but I hope you will take heed of my concerns. Waltontalk 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    I understand. No hard feelings. Andre (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: In the opening to this RfB, you say "It's been a while". Indeed it has. You've been utterly absent from WT:RFA since November of 2005 up until a couple of days ago [1]. Why the sudden re-interest? I'm hard pressed to understand how you could be well versed in community expectations for the role of bureaucrat. I also have precious little to go on with which to evaluate you as a potential bureaucrat. Very little activity at all with regards to RfA. Become involved again, as you were in 2005, engaging in discussion and evaluating candidates with some thought out comments and apply again in a few months please. --Durin 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    Please see discussion on this matter with nae'blis, below. Andre (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Durin. I'd prefer a more active admin be promoted to bureaucrat - we have enough inactive bureaucrats as it is, and I can't tell if you'll be consistent or not. Majorly (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per AKAF and Haukur. Everyking 05:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per my long standing reasoning and per Durin. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment User has opposed several other RfBs with his "long standing reasoning" without specifying what that reasoning is: [2]. Icemuon 16:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Jeffrey has indeed been making the same argument for a long time; he makes it in detail at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Francs2000. Chick Bowen 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Please see his talk page, where I asked for some elaboration. Andre (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Basically per Durin -- Y not? 20:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Xoloz and Durin (whose questions have not been answered, something I find disturbing in a potential 'crat). I understand that you you explicitly 'said' that IAR should not be used to justify RFA results, but the fact that you mentioned it at all bothers me. -- nae'blis 16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Xoloz's questions have in fact been answered, which is why he withdrew his oppose, saying "Issues have been clarified sufficiently such that I withdraw my oppose.". If you want more information on Xoloz's objections, see his talk page. As for Durin, I don't really have an "answer" -- the main thrust of his oppose seemed to be "not active enough," and what could I really say to that except "no, I've been active enough," which seems like a needlessly argumentative comment. I don't understand what's disturbing about that. Prospective admins or bureaucrats are not required to respond to each and every comment on this page. In fact, doing so would probably be a bad idea. And as for IAR, I tried to explain that it was a case of Danny's nomination being a special case, and not that IAR is a principle generally used on RfA. If you're concerned, I can promise right now that if I ever become a bureaucrat, I will never use IAR as a rationale to promote. Andre (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Good communication skills are paramount for bureaucrats in my book; making me go look on Xoloz's talk page for a reply to questions/concerns raised here is not good communication. As for Durin, a simple reply that you don't believe his concerns are addressable would have negated that concern of mine. But I'll grant you that my requirements for communication are different from the norm, apparently, as I don't have all day to spend here arguing politics. I just don't see the level of familiarity, communication, and trust here that I would like from a new 'crat. -- nae'blis 13:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't specifically know why Xoloz started a discussion on my talk page instead of here, but I assume it was because this page is already gigantic and still to grow. You can read the discussion at User talk:Andrevan#Here's a good_ice-breaker... and User talk:Xoloz/archive16#The sound of one molecule of ice breaking. As is standard talk page procedure, I responded on his talk page, and so on. However, I can't really say I understand why this impacts your assessment of my communication skills. I also don't know where the concept of replying to say that concerns can't be replied to comes from; if that were standard practice, RfAs and RfBs would be full of comments like "I have no response to this." As in Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Ral315, which you supported, many oppose !votes stand alone with no comment from the nominee. As for familiarity and trust, I assure you I have both of these in spades, but if you're concerned please raise a specific objection in those areas. Andre (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    I concur with Andre in that the question is not one that can readily be answered. It did not need an answer; it self-answered really. I re-iterate my stance that should this RfB fail, Andre should remain active at RfA and run again in a few months. I know he said this would be his last attempt, but I hope he reconsiders that stance. --Durin 14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks Durin, but if you want me, now's your chance ;) Seriously though, I don't think a fourth bureaucrat nomination would be good form. Andre (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. You need to be much more active than you are at the moment, you've only got back into being more active right before this nom. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    So I need to be more active than I am at the moment, or more active than I've been historically "right before this nom"? Or some combination thereof? ;) Andre (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    I kid, of course, I just found your phrasing amusing. :) Andre (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Unduly lengthy oppose Although certain of my initial concerns, which were rather like those of Walton, have been allayed, I find there nevertheless to be a good bit that disquiets about Andre's understanding of the role of a bureaucrat in the closing of an RfA and the general nature of RfA itself, which, even as clarified, I gather to be rather different from mine, such that, as, I think, and per Haukur, AKAF, and Walton, I do not feel comfortable reposing in Andre my trust relative to the closing of RfAs. I should have no problem at all trusting Andrevan exceedingly competently and consistent with policy and the consensus of particularized discussions to carry out those (usually rather pro forma) other tasks of which a bureaucrat might partake, but the significance and frequency of requests for adminship render any missteps in the closing thereof to be much more disruptive and plainly bad than any misstep in the execution of a bot flagging or username change, and so my general RfB analysis, which, inasmuch as I continue to believe that we ought to bureaucrat (as a verb) any editor the net effect on the project of whose becoming a bureaucrat should be positive, would serve to promote any qualified editor even where his/her help is not apparently and presently needed to fulfill any (important) bureaucrat task (by which I mean that we don't need more bureaucrats, although a better justification for an oppose, IMHO, than we don't need more admins, is not, to me, persuasive, and that if I thought Andre to meet my standard I'd support him even as I might not think him to be, for me, the best of our current six-pack of candidates) does not permit me with any reasonable degree of confidence to say that the promotion of Andre would prove, to/in my mind, a good thing. Joe 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    I apologize, but I've read this about four times and I can't quite get my head around what you're saying here. Are you opposing per AKAF and Haukur? Andre (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    It's not your fault for being mildly perplexed; I see that I neglected, you know, actually to say why I was opposing (for which I apologize); that you were able to parse that textual monstrosity—I was opposing essentially per AKAF, et al.—leads me to think that you are eminently capable of handling even our complex RfAs. On the broader issue: My understanding of RfA is like that of AKAF and Haukur, I think, viz., that RfA is not, or should not be, unlike a vote, and my understanding of bureaucratship is as ministerial (I believe, that is, that a bureaucrat acts only to divine for what action a consensus lies and then to effect such action, irrespective of his personal views about the soundness of arguments expressed in discussions—except, of course, where there exist overriding policies to which the community have acceded and where those policies are plainly inconsistent with a discussion, in which case further input ought perhaps to be sought (there are, to be sure, no such policies or general understandings relative to requests for adminship, and I can't imagine that ever there will be)—and in no case in substitution of his views or those of certain others for those of the community writ large. Although I realize that your position is more tempered than first I or others thought it to be, I think it is probably fair to say that you think RfA closure to be something more than vote counting (please correct me if I'm wrong), and with a few extreme exceptions, I don't, and so I am inclined to support only those who are clearly in the RfA is (more-or-less) a vote camp (or, rather, who will act consistent with the idea that RfA is more-or-less a vote, even as they might think it ought to be otherwise). Joe 00:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    So I think you're saying that RfA is a vote, and you would only like to support bureaucrat candidates who also think it is a vote. I recommend you take a look at Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy, etc. Though RfA has a lot in common with voting, RfA isn't itself a vote, but rather a discussion process to generate consensus. I strongly agree with this aspect of your statement, "a bureaucrat acts only to divine for what action a consensus lies and then to effect such action, irrespective of his personal views..." as I have said above and in various places on this page. I will never let a personal opinion influence an RfA closing if made a bureaucrat, and I will not register a support or oppose opinion AND close the same RfA. However, a strict vote-count could be performed by a bot -- the reason for the bureaucrat position is to interpret the nuances of arguments and determine whether consensus truly does exist. So if someone is borderline when it comes to the percentages used for rules of thumb, the bureaucrat's job is to interpret the community feeling on the matter. User:Voice of All/Consensus is good reading material as well. Andre (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    In short: don't worry, I wouldn't abuse my bureaucratic discretion to weigh in on most RfAs where the numerical level of support is clear. Andre (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - not active enough for me to comfortable with this user. pschemp | talk 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Sorry, I cannot support. You have not been active enough in Wikipedia lately, you had a "uncontroversial tenure" because you had not used your administrators tools as much as other "controversial" administrators, and that (in case you did not know, I am rather blunt, so my apologies if you get offended) you are fishing for bureaucratship, trying to ride on the previous three posted RfB's, just like people tried to ride the "wave" after Essjay's departure. While others may argue you don't need to have utilized your administrators tools in order to be a good bureaucratship, the fact that you don't use your administrator tools regularly leads me to think you would not use your new tools regularly as well. -- ReyBrujo 03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    Although I appreciate your viewpoint, I would like to point out that I announced a vague intent to submit my nomination at 23:08, 2 July 2007 (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Bureaucratship Again?)... so actually, they're riding MY wave! ;) Andre (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    Aha! You know, I am very happy to acknowledge my misjudgment and to strike that out. I cannot support because my main point was inactivity as administrator and editor in general, but at least your reply eased my mind (you never know when someone will get offended!). -- ReyBrujo 04:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    And by the way, since you seem to stand my bluntness so well ;-) I don't like the "(and final, I'd say, regardless of outcome)" part of your nomination, because a) it makes me think you will leave or become very inactive if the request passes; b) therefore, it may make a few support your nomination because they don't want to see you leave; and c) the only Death Is Certain ;-) Anyways, good luck! -- ReyBrujo 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, no, I have no intention of leaving. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood. I just meant that if this nomination fails, I have no desire to seek bureaucratship again - it's not really a big deal anyway, and I think 4 nominations is pushing it (actually I think 3 is pushing it as well). Andre (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    But thanks for your reasoned comments and input, and your good luck! Andre (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral for now. I have thoughts somewhat similar to ReyBrujo above. You've been an admin for three years and appear to have been involved in no major controversies. But at that same time, you've not been very active. There are lots of administrative backlogs that could have used attention, but you haven't spent much time attending to those. So what about the bureaucrat backlogs is different that would cause you to devote time to clearing them? It's not a reason to oppose, just a general perplexity at why you're even interested in being a bureaucrat. --JayHenry 20:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
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.