Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Essjay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Essjay

Final (143/16/4) ended 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Essjay (talk · contribs)

I have been a contributor with Wikipedia for over a year now, and I've been considering for some time how I can best to serve the community. I have been an administrator here for over six months, and also serve as an administrator on Meta, Commons, and Wikiquote; I've served in the leadership of various Wikipedian associations (such as serving as the Administrator General of Esperanza). I have served on the Mediation Committee for several months, and currently serve as Chair. Additionally, I have been granted checkuser permissions by the Arbitration Committee, and serve as an official contact for Wikimedia with Freenode, the IRC network that hosts most of Wikimedia's IRC channels.

Over the past year I have been an active theology contributor, a prolific admin and RC patroller, a significant closer at VfD (in the days when it was still VfD), among other duties. I've nominated quite a few candidates for adminship (for example: Redwolf24, Who, Rick Block, Longhair), and voted on a significant number of the RfA's that have come through over the past year.

As I consider how I can better serve the project, I have come to believe I may be useful as a bureaucrat. When it was first suggested that I run (sometime in August 2005), I declined, as I didn't feel I had been with the project long enough and hadn't served long enough as an administrator. Since that time, a number of individuals have suggested that I should run, and I have always deferred, citing the one-year mark as an absolute minimum before I would consider a run. As the one-year mark (February 8) arrived, I again began to hear suggestions that I run, and I've had plenty of time to consider doing so. Having decided to run, I now submit myself for consideration.

The deciding factor for me was the adoption of a new responsiblity for bureaucrats that I have been advocating for the past few months. Currently, stewards are responsible for setting bot flags, but are uncomfortable with this responsibility, as it often requires them to interpret a local decision when they are unfamiliar with the local bot policy, and indeed, often unfamiliar with the local project language. There has for some time been a push to make this a responsibility of local bureaucrats, and with the support of User:Angela and Anthere (who originated the proposal some months ago), I have picked up the proposal where it stood and pushed for its adopted. Several weeks ago, I discussed the matter with Jimbo, and he subsequently approved the proposal and asked Brion to implement it. Because Brion is *incredibly busy* keeping the site running, I've done what I can to help out by writing an extension to provide the Special:Makebot interface; Brion is in the process of implementing this. (It is, lest I overstate my coding abilities, a modified version of the Special:Makesysop extension already in use on Wikimedia projects.)

I have until now held my request in abeyance, awiating a decision on this proposal. With the additional function of bot flagging now assigned to local bureaucrats, I believe it is an opportune time to consider adding new bureaucrats to the existing staff. I believe I satisfy community standards for bureaucrats, and would be a useful addition to the current ranks. I believe I have demonstrated that I am a reliable member of the community who can be trusted with restricted functions.

In summation, I'd like to renumerate my qualifications: I'm an admin on four projects, have been an admin here for six months, have closed more than my fair share of VfD's (back in the days of VfD), demonstrating that I understand consensus, and I follow RfA closely, giving me an understanding of the community's standards for administrator promotion. I don't believe that I lack an understanding of Wikipedia process and proceedure, or that I am untrustworthy with restricted features. I ask of every voter here a single question, the only question truly relevant to a request for bureaucratship:

Do I trust Essjay to promote accepted adminship requests, fill username change requests, and set bot flags? Essjay Talk • Contact 13:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Glad I get to be the first one to support. Whether we need more bureaucrats or not, if we do need more, we definitely need this user as one of them. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Definitely a good choice. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Essjay is trustworthy and diligent, and he actually keeps a close eye on the RfA and bot projects and (the gods help him) likes this stuff. Give him the keys to the broom mop closet. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Of course. pschemp | talk 13:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. There's no reason that I can think of not to support. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support We need more bureaucrats at Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - I'm confident Essjay can be trusted with the "promote switch". --Latinus 14:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Absolutely. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. NSLE (T+C) at 14:10 UTC (2006-03-24)
  10. Support Tintin (talk)
  11. More candidates like this one, please!TM Support ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support - I like his admin policy. Tom Harrison Talk 14:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support --Terence Ong 14:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support--MONGO 14:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support -- DS1953 talk 14:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support -- Very sensible, restrained admin. Will be a fine bureaucrat. However, he should be warned that becoming a bureaucrat is no guarantee against being drafted into the ArbCom, and if that's his intentions here, well, it won't work. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think Essjay ever plans to run for ArbCom, he's made statements to that effect on IRC that ArbCom is not a job he would want -- Tawker 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Which is too bad, really, if you ask me. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support - Of course. - Tangotango 15:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support - strong & thoughtful leadership ∴ here…♠ 15:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strongest possible support. the wub "?!" 15:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support No reason to deny him bureaucratship. I hate oppose votes that deny bureaucratship saying we don't need anymore, which is absurd. Moe ε 15:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support, models everything a bureaucrat should be. -- Natalya 15:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, is a good admin and mediator, and has enough RfA activity to clinch it for me. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support --Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    Support No brainer; editor could have had job months ago, had he asked. We don't need more b'crats, but he's too good to deny. Xoloz 16:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support I have not doubt in my mind that Essjay will make an outstanding bureaucrat! -- Psy guy Talk 16:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Strongest possible support I was wondering when he would apply. Perfect example of the calm and reasoned approach needed for the job. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    Changing from "support" to "strongest possible support" following the nominee's answers to the many questions on this RfB. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong support - I've been spending a little bit of time thinking of a good reason to go with my vote but I can't say anything that Essjay didn't say himself. He's loyal (for the most part), caring, Wikipedia knowledge-rich (ie, experienced), exciting and vibrant, active and a darn nice guy. An asset to Wikipedia in any and all capacities, I must say. --Celestianpower háblame 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    Will resupport when the count stops being the number of the beast. --Celestianpower háblame 16:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Essjay has 666 votes? --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    You can un-strike now :) Petros471 18:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Yes. Nobody deserves this more. — FireFox • T [18:32, 24 March 2006]
  28. Support Seems like a thankless job to me, but if he wants to do I see no reason why not! As they say, "the reward for doing a job well on Wikipedia is another job". --kingboyk 18:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support I have Celestianpower's problem, and then they went and used up still *more* words that I could have used. As to the dont need more bcrats, I agree for the moment...but I'd hate to be in a bad place 6 months from now and not have qualified bcrats in the pool. --Syrthiss 19:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support - Essjay has been such a great help to myself in my three months here, and with bot flags becoming a BCrat task in the near future, we DO need more bureaucrats. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support --Ixfd64 19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support, even though you used the words "serve" or "served" seven times in your first paragraph. Ya been served. BD2412 T 19:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Has proven himself to become anything. GizzaChat © 20:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support How could I not? Essjay is definitely qualified, and if he wants to take on another thankless job that's his problem :D--Shanel 20:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Would definitely make a good bureaucrat. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Strong Support I'm still on wikibreak, but one edit won't help ;) --Jaranda wat's sup 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support The need for bureacrats is not mine to decide. This is an exceptionally polite, experienced and knowledgeable admin. Joe I 22:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. I thought he was already an admin! Oh wait... -Mysekurity 22:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support without reservation. NoSeptember talk 22:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support per Special:Makebot commitment. - Mailer Diablo 22:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Complete, strong, and unequivocal support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support yes. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support, of course. --TantalumTelluride 23:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support - yes. The only reasons to keep 'crat numbers to a minimum are security, but there are no security concerns with this one. --Doc ask? 23:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. --Rory096 23:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. support Me and essjay havent always seen eye to eye on certian things, but essjay has more than proven himself to be an excellent admin, always considering things from all sides and excellent at interperting consesus, hes currently trusted by what i belive to be a huge majorty of the community and is always willing to help someone out with a problemBenon 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support He's not so active in the main namespace these days, but he seems like he would make a good bureaucrat. - Richardcavell 02:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. -Will Beback 04:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. Strong Support Essjay has been one of the most active and open to discussion users I know, would be a great bcrat -- Tawker 04:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Crushed by a Burning Elephant Support. He knows what he's doing. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support can't think of a better candidate.--Alhutch 04:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. — Mar. 25, '06 [04:54] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  57. Support I feel that 1) we need more bureaucrats, 2) Essjay is the man for the job. Mike (T C)
  58. Support. He deserves it, even if he did ban me from the CVU channel >_> Sceptre (Talk) 08:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support...absolutely. Essjay represents what's good about the Wikipedia project. KHM03 (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support, He deserves it as he is the elected chairman for WP:MC. Shyam (T/C) 13:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. Total Support--Exir Kamalabadi 14:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Total Support - I always wanted a friendly bureaucrat. ems 15:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  63. Alphax τεχ 15:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support Friendly, excellent admin. --Fuzzie (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support Extremely trustworthy, calm, rational expert editor and admin. Would make a second-to-none 'crat. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support can be trusted --rogerd 15:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support. Don't really know how to condense my reasons down to a reasonable length, so you'll just have to trust me (or ask on why on my talk page) that I've thought hard before casting this, my first contribution to a RfB. Petros471 18:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support of course, I mean Essjay has Checkuser! compared to that bureaucratship is nothing. Prodego talk 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support, Essjay will make a good bureaucrat, oh yes indeed, hmm hmm. JIP | Talk 18:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support after reading Essjay's reponses on the consensus threshold. Also, I don't think we ever need more b'crats, and it'd be ludicrous to vote for someone just because we needed more. That said, my feeling is that Essjay has distinguished himself as an outstanding admin with enough WP experience to make a good b'crat. --Alan Au 19:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support all the way. --Jay(Reply) 19:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  72. Total Support fantastic editor. I have complete faith. Computerjoe's talk 20:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support --605330 21:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support absolutely. One of the best administrators on the project, who understands consensus very well. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support a committed editor with impeccable credentials. 22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    User:Jossi. Did you forget a tilde? pschemp | talk 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support good user, gets my vote of support. Gryffindor 01:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support Without a doubt, an excellent administrator. mmeinhart 02:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support; trustworthy. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 02:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support. —Guanaco 05:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support -- WP:NOT a democracy and all this harping on the candidate's stated willingness to use careful human judgement is foolish. If we're going to promote admins only on the numbers, let us build a BureaucratBot. John Reid 05:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support We have enough bureaucratbots and adminbots. But not enough with the charachter, good judgement and trustworthiness he has demonstrated.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support This user can easily be trusted with bureaucrat responsibilies. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  83. Strong Support Essjay is a model for the community and someone who should be applauded for his work on wikipedia, AdamJacobMuller 08:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 09:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support Strongest possible support - couldn't add to all that's been said already Changed my vote pursuant to the incivility of two of the current 'crats . We need more checks and balances in that camp and we need people who are willing to use their brains and reason. --Mmounties (Talk) 14:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  86. You are my sunshine. I love you, Essjay! El_C 14:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support. Highly commendable and trustworthy user. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 15:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support. Very strong candidate. Mikker ... 15:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support, absolutely. Rick Block (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support Lectonar 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support. Though my vote probably won't count because I don't contribute much, I couldn't miss the opportunity to say "I'm Essjay's partner, and I approve this promotion." Robbie31 21:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support Outstanding admin -- Samir (the scope) 21:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support great admin. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support absolutely —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-27 06:32Z
  95. Support. He really "gets" what we're trying to do here at Wikipedia, and it shows in his consistently high-quality work. Warrens 06:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support. A strong builder of wikipedia.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support. In working with Essjay on the Mediation Committee, I've known Essjay to be a great user who is committed to the project. That's more than good enough for me. Ral315 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support. Jon Harald Søby 18:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support. Trustworthy admin, understands policy, and has "jay" in his username. Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    I am appalled by your blatant jaycism. BDJAYbramson T 19:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why, but I'm suddenly liking you much more. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  100. Support. I've seen this user around, and his work is excellent. James Kendall [talk] 20:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support Exceptional wikipedian! Hamster Sandwich 20:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support. Thryduulf 22:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support. Trustworthy admin, understands policy, and has "ess" in his username. image:tongue.png SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support Looks great to me. --Rob from NY 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support per above. -- King of Hearts talk 05:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support mostly per above. Bureaucrat duties really aren't much, and I think this user can do them fine. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support. Essjay has the experience to go FAR. Good luck, sir!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support. One of the best users and admins there is. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support. Most of the Oppose votes seem to be based on the 70% issue, but seem to misunderstand what Essjay wrote. He is not advocating any change, and has the necessary qualities for a good bureaucrat. Martinp 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support Essjay has done a great service to Wikipedia, and is exactly the sort of person who should be made a beaucrat. The argument that we have too many at the moment seems weak. --Wisden17 23:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  111. Support Essjay has a good understanding of what consensus means. -- Samuel Wantman 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support. Chick Bowen 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support. A prime member of the community; high level of involvement in countless projects. In addition, I trust Essjay. ~ PseudoSudo 02:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  114. Support-why-never-told-me-about-this-before? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  115. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 06:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  116. Support - David Gerard 10:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  117. Pile-on Support Werdna648T/C\@ 12:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  118. Support - After reading about the stress Francs has been under here I no longer accept the arguement that we have enough Bureaucrats. Essjay is needed as a bureaucrat.--Alabamaboy 14:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  119. Support --Misza13 T C 15:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  120. Support - WB 15:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  121. Strong Support - Why the hell not? BlueGoose 19:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  122. Support --Kusma (討論) 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  123. Support. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  124. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  125. Emphatic support. Excellent judgement and positive interaction with the vast majority of other editors. Broad participation in and knowledge of a number of wikiprocesses; seems to be a guy who knows How Things Work(tm). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  126. Support. More bcats are needed, although I wish he would do more mainspace edits... GfloresTalk 00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  127. Support Do we need more bureaucrats? Beats me, but I'd feel more comfortable being able to say for certain that we've got one really good one. My only hesitation with this nom is that there isn't a higher office he can be voted into. --InShaneee 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    There's always Steward. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  128. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  129. Support, and I would have voted earlier had I not forgotten. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  130. Support, despite the odd misgiving; with Francs gone, there is a bit of a gap Essjay can fill, and I'm sure he'll do a good job. I do wish he'd change the font colour on his talk page back to the default, though. Proto||type 13:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  131. Support, an exemplary user and admin and well fit for the position. Palmiro | Talk 14:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  132. Support as per above.Boxerglove 18:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  133. Support Without reservation. Banez 23:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  134. Support Great statement of acceptance; will make a great bureaucrat. Thistheman 02:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  135. Support. Surprise. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  136. Support I echo Redwolf24's comment. :) No really, I trust Essjay and his judgment. KnowledgeOfSelf 07:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  137. Last minute, not sure why I hadn't supported yet support. Will do well. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  138. Support. A trusted janitor is requesting access to the toolshed, and we're holding a vote? // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 07:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  139. Support per Pathoschild; you mean he isn't already one? _-M o P-_ 07:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  140. Support --hydkat 09:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  141. Support Danny 12:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  142. Guettarda 13:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  143. Support. I would probably not agree with Essjay on article content, but from what I've seen he follows policy, cares a lot about the project, and gives himself generously to it. I also noticed last year that he was particularly kind to another user. No reason to be afraid of giving him more power. AnnH ♫ 13:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. My exceptionally unpleasant experience with this user aside, and despite a lengthy argument to the contrary, I am sticking to my guns on this issue. There simply is no need for more bureaucrats at this time or in the near future. Nothing personal (see my RfB voting history). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. My objection to both of the new bureaucrat candidacies, at baseline, is the same. Where do we get "70%-80%". It is 75% to 80% except under the most extraordinary circumstances. A prospective bureaucrat announcing up front such an opinion means either that s/he intends to change the standards or else doesn't know what the standard is. -- Cecropia 23:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    Dear Jim, I think it's been a few months since I last conversation-threaded an RfA/B oppose vote, so I think it's good that the person subjected to it is you (I mean that in a good way; i.e. someone whose wikijudgment I place a great deal of faith in). While I can certainly appreciate your point above, I nonetheless do not find it to be such a big deal — while ordinarily, I will not deny its gravity, I do think that in Essjay's case, he is such an exceptionally consensus-driven person, that you can expect and predict him to consult and fall back on the experience of yourself and other bureaucrats when it comes to difficult decisions. But more significantly, I think he will be able to exhibit the sensitivity to the RfA as a discussion, not merely a quantitative vote count, but having the sort of knack toward grasping the history behind and qualitative dimensions of any given RfA — an ability you are well-known and regarded for by many (myself included, of course). So, an oversight? Perhaps. But beyond that. I'm confident you will be pleased to find first-hand that in Essjat's case, it was a minor one. Sorry for the longwindedness; thank you for bearing through my ramblings! All the best, El_C 11:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. My congratulations on the bot flag issue, and I think you are an excellent admin. However, if you have been insufficiently attentive to RFA to know that the threshold is 75%, then I doubt you can be sufficiently prepared to serve as a bureaucrat. I also find the "spread the blame" comments to suggest a level of tenativeness that makes me uneasy. In my opinion, bureaucrats should be able to be decisive most of the time, even on close calls. The ones that really require discussion are uncommon even among votes that are close. Dragons flight 01:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose for the same reason as Cecropia has opposed. You're a great guy, a fantastic admin, and I'm sure you'd make a great bureaucrat, but such a statement about the consensus level being lower than has been used in the past either shows to me a level of unilateral action that is not good for a bureaucrat to display, or a lack of knowledge of the existing guidelines. -- Francs2000 02:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Opposition withdrawn, I wish to take no further part in this discussion. -- Francs2000 12:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I don't usually support candidate responses to votes, but I feel that this must be adressed immediately: I have not said anywhere that I intend to make any sort of unilateral actions. This is a misrepresentation of my statements and I resent it strongly. What I said was this, exactly this:When the vote falls between 70% and 80%, the best move is to discuss with other bureaucrats. Where in "discuss with other bureaucrats" does the idea of "unilateral action" come from? Why is saying that I would discuss with other bureaucrats such a bad thing? Why has a commitment to asking for the input of others been turned into a declaration of intent to be a rogue bureaucrat? Essjay Talk • Contact 02:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Though it is not my vote you are responding to, I believe you are missing the point in emphasizing the concept that you are being accused of wrongdoing: "unilateralism," rather than that your statement indicates (as I said) an intent "to change the standards or else [the candidate] doesn't know what the standard is." This is not an insignificant point, considering the "Luigi" nomination which required a considerable effort to explain to the community that this was not a precedent for future nominations. Your assertion "{w]hen the vote falls between 70% and 80%, the best move is to discuss with other bureaucrats" is also flawed not simply by the erroneous low number but by saying the "best" move is to consult with other bureaucrats. The "best" move is to stand aside if you are not confident in making a decision. Only if the nomination has stood undecided for a while because of bureaucrat inaction (rare, rare occurence) might you need a general consultation. It is important that the candidate and community know the results of an RfA in reasonable time, which is why the "Bureaucracy" shouldn't be a debating society. I don't see anyone accusing of potential malfeasance, only of being unprepared for the task. -- Cecropia 03:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you Cecropia. I would like to add in addition to her response that my comment about taking a unilateral action was solely about the declaration that 70% consensus was an acceptable level at which to start considering someone for adminship: this is unilateral because it's not written down anywhere and I brought it up because if you get through as a bureaucrat having stated that in your nomination, it makes the job a lot harder to do because the boundaries have been blurred. I am also not impressed by your reaction to my statement: by defensively implying that I was inferring abuse of position on your part rather than seeing my statement for what I had actually written illustrates to me that you do not stand up well to criticism and if you think this is bad, wait until you have to start making bureaucrat decisions: every action you make is scrutinised and you have to be able to stand your ground under heavy cross-fire and keep a cool head. You have not demonstrated that here, and I am now even less inclined to support your nomination for bureaucratship. -- Francs2000 09:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: my criteria include at least one year as admin. Jonathunder 04:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Wow, this is painful. I respect Essjay, and I believe he would make a good b'crat; however, his own response here has promoted the opinion that 70% might serve as the normative minimum in RfA's. I oppose this idea so strongly that I must also oppose this nomination on principle. I hope to see Essjay as a b'crat soon, but I cannot shake my nervousness over the standard appearing in Flcelloguy's nomination so soon after Essjay's. The integrity of Wikipedia is more important than the promotion of any single editor. As an pronounced RfA "conservative", I'm very uncomfortable with any (re-)lowering of the standard for consensus here. Xoloz 04:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose: Essjay seems to take it personally that people think he wants to abuse powers, when they complain about his 70% policy. Does not instill confidence. -lethe talk + 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose: consensus level too low. Lou franklin 03:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    This user seems to have a pattern of opposing people who commented in his Rfar. Here Essjay commented, here Malthusian (Sam Blanning) commented, and here is the oppose. pschemp | talk 05:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose [1]Just another star in the night T | @ | C 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    Could you be more specific? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    I believe RN wishes to point out that Essjay has only had 250 article edits since August, 2005, which is very, very low. Xoloz 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    yes, basically Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    I merely think he/she is taking on too much, and that I would like to see more recent article space edits. That is all. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 03:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    "Opposition withdrawn, I wish to take no further part in this discussion." - to quote Francs2000 :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Not only do we not need any more B-crats at the moment, but I have had rather unpleasent and unhelpful dealings with this user. -Mask 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    For the record, the "unpleasent and unhelpful dealings with this user" involved AKMask being removed from the channel #wikipedia-en. Essjay gave ops to Pschemp, who then kicked AKMask for disruption. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Essjay already has new shiny CheckUser tool to play with. Seriously, 70% is too low for admin promotion.  Grue  21:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose after much consideration and in pain at doing so. I am not really satsified by the answers given here, nor by their increasingly melodramatic style. The fact is that the answer to the key question was not right, and the subsequent answers both here and elsewhere continue to maintain that they were, in large part at least, notwrong. It is kind of implied that 70% was the threshold until Cecropia arbitrarily raised it in January, but that's simply not the case. It's been 75% for a long long time, as seen in Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nichalp back in August, and as indicated at the top of this page for a long time. Thinking otherwise is probably indicative of not having a firm enough grip on where things currently are in this most central of Bureaucrat functions (unless, and I will admit the possibility, I am much misguided on this myself). It's not that the numbers are superior to a discussion or whatever, but that, when they were talked about, the answers came out not-right enough. A nominee on RfB should have a clear view of this before nominating rather than having to gradually recant during the RfB. To address one or two of the support comments: there is no relation between being a bureaucrat and the other various functionary positions that Essjay holds and executes with great skill since none of them requires even the slightest involvement in promoting admins from RfA and executing those positions does not provide any great amount of information on the nominee's views of RfA and its policies and practises. -Splashtalk 23:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose for five seven reasons. First, the narky and petulant answer to the fourth oppose vote. Second, I'm not convinced we need more bureaucrats - bot-flagging isn't exactly time-consuming, and our current array of bureaucrats aren't falling apart at the seams with their current workload of maybe 10-15 RFAs a week. Third, I'm a little bit leery of allowing one user with 12 months experience of Wikipedia have his fingers in so many pies. Fourth, he's clearly rubbed a few people up the wrong way, which isn't a good sign. And fifth, as the main and unique role of a bureaucrat is to judge RFAs, he should really have a handle on the whole 75% thing. And I don't often agree with Splash. Proto||type 09:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    And six, only 250 article edits in the last 9 months is just horrible. I dislike namespace-ateering (what happened to AzaToth's RFA was dumb), but that is lowwwwww. And seven, I can't read his talk page without highlighting it or getting a headache, because he's changed the font color to a horrible washed-out grey. If there'd just been two or three of these seven reasons, I would have probably supported, but all of them together kinda force my hand. Proto||type 10:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to support Proto||type 13:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I have come to strongly dislike this user. Everyking 11:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Weak Oppose per Cecropia. I would rather have candiates go by the written guidelines for promotion, than something else. On top of that, adding more "BCrats" will do very little to help serve this site. Also, you tend to do a lot of other good work, Essjay, which may serve as a distration anyway. I would rather you do more mediation, Esperenza, and admin work.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Shouldn't then you place your vote under Neutral? ems 06:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose on largely the same grounds as Splash.
    I'm especially concerned about the responses -- in bold-big-italics, even -- to the reasonable concerns of two (then-)current bureaucrats, one of whom we've unfortunately just lost. (I hope the two events are not related, and am baffled at the suggestion of one supporter that the other parties are somehow at fault here.)
    While I appreciate the "heads up" about the upcoming bot-flag change, lest anyone have that as a particular concern, I don't see how this can be a reason to support, as such. Even if this were going to create a tremendous new burden on BCs (which seems highly unlikely), separate consideration of such a need, on mature reflection after such a policy was in place, would be highly preferable. (And if Jimmy Wales wants to establish such privs in a top-down manner, it's for that very reason beyond the scope of this page.)
    Low rate of recent main article space editing of any sort seems to indicate that the statements about RC patrol and being an active theology contributor are not currently applicable. I don't by any means support a "one size fits all" model for contributions-by-namespace (or otherwise), and have been disappointed to see several perfectly reasonable RFAs go south from such concerns; but not much more than one edit per day, over a sustained period, to The Actual Encyclopaedia(TM) is extraordinarily low. This may be understandable given his many other roles, but equally, I'm concerned about just how many of these roles there are. Together with the "leadership positions" comment (and indeed situation) this starts to seem like a systematic move into WikiManagement, by accident or by design. I'd much rather have special roles separated to a reasonable extent, and mixed in with a reasonable amount of "ordinary" work alongside the rest of we mere mortals. (I also feel that in the majority of such cases, distinguished "leadership positions" are needless and possibly counterproductive hierarchicalism, but that's less pertinent here.)
    I also disagree with the assertion regarding "the only question truly relevant" here. In fact, the long-accepted standard is that BC are the most trusted users in such matters, where that's only really sensibly scoped with regard to a currently desirable BC pool size.
    On a minor note, somewhat too soon; while historically six months was pretty usual, the current size of the corps, the modest current (and immediate future) workload, and the greater number of available candidates with longer "time served" justifies a more precautionary approach.
    Oh, and we still don't actually need any more bureaucrats. Alai 02:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose after carefully considering comments above. Derex 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Respectful oppose - there is something very difficult to verbalize regarding this request, and after some thought, I feel more comfortable with leaning towards this particular sentiment. In my mind, the answer to the last proposition in the candidacy statement does not address adequately the full universe of discourse which concerns bureaucratships on Wikipedia. With great consideration, HappyCamper 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. I still see no need for additional bureaucrats at this time. When the time comes, then we can create them. —Cleared as filed. 12:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Essjay, just to let you know, we don't set bot flags. But, I'm not going to oppose you because frankly, you're one chap who knows where his towel is. If you get elected to bureaucrat, then I say welcome aboard, but first talk to the existing bureaucrats for help first. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If you read what Essjay said, he has been working with Jimbo and the Board to make bot flagging a bureaucrat task. After several months of effort, Jimbo have finally order it to be implemented and Essjay has even written the software changes needed for this. According to Essjay, Brion will be doing this in the near future. So even if it is not b-crat task now, it will be one shortly because Jimbo has already ordered it done. -- Psy guy Talk 19:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I can't support this, but Essjay is a kind person, so I can't oppose. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 01:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral --Adam1213 Talk + 07:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I don't have anything against him, but we don't need more bureaucrats. Stifle 17:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think he would be a good bureaucrat (in fact I am fan of much of what I have seen him do), but the low RfA promotion standards concern me. The discussions I have seen, including those over the Luigi30 RfA (72.4%) suggests that Essjay's standards are not in line with other bureaucrats or the community, but I'll let others comment on this. NoSeptember talk 14:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The conversation about the numbers (as subordinate to any debate that may occur as they are) doesn't seem to have mentioned Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Instructions for sysoping someone, where 70% is not entertained as a promotion level, extraordinarily mitigating circumstances aside. That document, which I believe to be in line with all-but-one (Luigi30, which was questionable at best) promotions in the last large number of months, prefers to grant 'crats discretion beginning at about 75%. I'm wondering what Essjay thinks of this. -Splashtalk 14:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The discussion at Requests for bureaucratship/Linuxbeak may be useful on this point. NoSeptember talk 14:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see my expanded comments below, where I point to the passages from Wikipedia:Consensus that yeilded my statement. Also in my comment is a link to the diff from January 14th, when the cutoff was raised to 75% from it's previous 70%. I want to make it absolutely clear: I am not stating that I have any intentiont to promote candidates below 75% if granted bureaucratship; rather, I am simply stating that in a case where I felt promotion was the legitimate result of the RfA, I would consult with other bureaucrats first. I don't want this to become a rallying cry of "Essjay said 54-40 or fight!"; I'm not saying that at all. Instead, I'm saying that no promotion will happen outside the guidelines without prior discussion with at least one other bureaucrat. Essjay Talk • Contact 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you. It seems that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter and WP:BCRAT have been divergent on this point for some time (e.g. see Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nichalp), back in Aug 05. I certainly agree with Essjay on the central importance of the quotes he takes from WP:CON, but what I'm really getting at is an expression of the fact that RfAs are held to a generally higher standard than, say, AfDs, even though clearly WP:CON applies to them both equally. (And because I've been talking about these darned numbers recently, I want to make plain that I fully appreciate the need, benefit and actuality of the fact that we prefer sociology over statistics. My concern is that, often, there is little sociology to RfAs and the statistics inevitably loom larger in such cases.) -Splashtalk 15:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • How about a case study. What are your opinions about promotion on this RfA and the comments (those of the bureaucrats) made about it? NoSeptember talk 15:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I think it was a tough decision, but then, bureaucrats are tasked with making the tough calls. Looking at the history, I see that voting was still going on within two hours of closing, in fact, quite a lot of it. I think Cecropia was right to call it no consensus, as a clear consensus (or even a slightly muddled one) certainly doesn't exist; I probably would have exercised the option to extend (an option that is somewhat rarely used) as this was an unusual situation. As I have tried to point out (and apparently, shot myself in the foot for doing so) I think discussion on contentious promotions is a good thing; I've rareley seen angry postings (or Arbitration cases) where the parties were screaming "You discussed it with too many people, you person who likes to be sure you are making the right call! How dare you confirm that you are doing the right thing!" There are, however, quite a few that say "You should have talked to someone else." As for the 70% issue, I feel my comments have been misrepresented; I am not stating that I feel 70% represents a current acceptible threshhold (although as I've pointed out several times, it was until very recently), rather, I am saying that before considering a move outside the guidelines (which the guidleines clearly address; if there is no case for acting outside them, why mention it there?) I will discuss it with others. What was supposed to be an assurance of an extra commitment to avoid abusing powers has been made into a declaration of an intent to abuse them, and I resent that. As Jimbo has said, "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." I stand by my commitment to discuss matters where I am unsure of the propriety of my decision, and refuse to believe getting a second opinion is a sign of weakness: It is a humble recognition that one is subject to making mistakes, and a wholehearted dedication to seeking and utilizing the wisdom of others. Wikipedia could do to have more of it. Essjay Talk • Contact 02:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to believe that what needs to be said here is this: I fully accept 75% as the absolute, no questions cutoff for admin promotion, and do solemnly swear that I would never consider a candidate below that, and further affirm that in the event I witness another bureaucrat making such an egregious violation of the community trust, will immediately seek to have bureaucrat rights stripped from that user, by holding a steward at gunpoint if necessary, and will see that the heathen ex-bureaucrat is punnished in the most violent way possible, preferably burning at the stake, or crushing by elephant, or both. </absurdity> With that said, let me say, I am fully committed to the 80% figure as being the benchmark for promotion, and I do agree that promoting anything below 75% is inappropriate outside some kind of ultra-extraordinary circumstances. All I want the community to know, and all I was trying to say in my answer to the question was that I would never, EVER, consider making a promotion outside the community's standards, and that if I was uncertain of whether my decision was the correct one, I would defer the decision until I was able to discuss with others. I believe the 70% issue has been seized upon as a sort of rallying cry, and I feel that is extrememly unfotrtunate, because it represents a complete misrepresentation of both my commitment to the community and the statement I made. To tell the truth, I am rather hurt at the accusation from several well-respected community members that I would abuse bureaucrat tools. Essjay Talk • Contact 03:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, can you understand that the issue is not a personal attack upon you, your decency, or your intent to perform honestly, but an issue of misunderstanding fundamental issues of how promotions are decided. Luigi's 72.4% (IIRC) promotion was an error that caused a major stir when community members wanted to know why this was not a precedent. Look at that nomination and the fallout if you don't follow what I'm saying. If one bureaucrat is on a different page, the community cannot have confidence in the process. -- Cecropia 03:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's a persona attack at all, I am just hurt that my comments were misrepresented to suggest that I support something I do not. I am not in favor of a 70% cutoff, I do not advocate for a 70% cutoff, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't do it in an RfB. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You say your comments were misrepresented. Perhaps in some ways, but not really concerning your first statements. I would point out that when I first brought up the consensus issue, the only thing you had written on the topic were the answers to questions 1 & 2. I invite everyone to read those answers again. In those answers, how many times did Essjay type "70%"? (6 times) How many times did Essjay type "75%"? (0 times) The impression of a low consensus level was left by your answers, not by anyone else. Your answers speak for themselves. You also seemed to indicate a lot of extending the RfA period and consultation, rather than solid decision making. Bureaucrats are more umpires than negotiators I would think. Your question 6 answers were also unclear and seemed unrelated to RfA, seeming to defend consensus in general and not recognizing that RfA consensus differs from other "votes" around Wikipedia. The reason I support you for bureaucrat is because I believe that you are now well aware of the community standard, so if you had a false impression in the past, it will not affect your future performance in the job, but your unusual answers were the clear cause of the confusion. NoSeptember talk 12:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This user is over too many projects now to do them all justice. This user also is volatile, just look at his history after someone nominated the catholic church of wikipedia for deletion. "This user was a good sheperd", "this user was an administrator", this user was this and that all over his page and he quit and came back. He also deleted all his images and some things when he was upset. He got mad here and hasn't answered all the questions. No trust here and he don't even know what percentage it takes to make admin.--71.28.246.73 20:38, 29 March 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. First and foremost: consensus. Where no consensus exists, no promotion can occur. How consensus is defined is subjective and may change as the community changes. For now, the generally accepted measure of consensus on adminship requests stands as 80% support as a definate consensus. When a request falls between 70% and 80%, it falls to the bureaucrat to carefully consider the views presented on both sides and make a determination. Where a request has below 70%, promotion should not occur.

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

A. First, spread the blame. :-) Let me say I take "contentious" to mean "between 70% and 80% support," as if it is above 80%, even if there are a large number of opposes, it is the duty of the bureaucrat to promote, and if it is below 70%, it is the duty of the bureaucrat to deny promotion; there is nothing about either of those actions to criticize. When the vote falls between 70% and 80%, the best move is to discuss with other bureaucrats (hence "spread the blame"); if multiple bureaucrats are involved in the decision, then there is less to criticize, as it was not one person's view, but rather a consensus on the existance of consensus. Extending the request is useful if voting was still going on when time expired; if no votes have been cast in more than a day, then extending the vote may not be as useful. Where a vote has been extended (somewhat of a rarity, I belive) and still falls between 70% and 80%, then discussion with other bureaucrats becomes essential.

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've been a Wikipedian for over a year, and an administrator on this wiki for over six months; in that time, I've taken a large number of administrator actions and reviewed most of the policies operative on the site. (I'm sure there is some policy I haven't had cause to see; it would be somewhat arrogant to assume I've seen every policy that exists.) I believe I've demonstrated an adherence to policy and a commitment to fairness in the time I have been here. Additionally, I'm also an administrator for Meta, Commons, and Wikiquote; I believe this demonstrates that I have shown levelheadedness and a dedication to the principles of the community. As for an abilit to engage others in the community, I offer in support my involvement in the Esperanza Association, which is dedicated to community building, and my position as chair of the Mediation Committee, which is focused on assisting in solving disputes in the community.

4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on 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. Bureaucrats are members of the community, just as everyone else, and have a right to express an opinion on certain candidates. However, when they do so, they relinquish the ability to act as a bureaucrat on that nomination: bureaucrats are ininvolved servants of the community will, and cannot fulfill that capacity if they have involved themselves.
I pledge not to act as a bureaucrat on any request that I have commented on, and to not comment as a bureaucrat on any nomination. (By this, I mean, I will not make comments that suggest I support or oppose any request in my capacity as a bureaucrat, i.e., "I'm a bureaucrat and have closed a lot of requests; this one will never pass.")
I reserve the right to vote on requests just as any other user can. It is not uncommon for bureaucrats to vote on nominations (two bureaucrats voted in my RfA), and I don't believe it is inappropriate for them to do so. As I said above, bureaucrats are members of the community, and do not relinquish thier right to comment in community processes by taking on additional responsibilities; what they do relinquish is their ability to serve as a bureaucrat on that request.
As for discussions with other bureaucrats, I believe that the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard is the appropriate location. If a discussion must be conducted privately (I can't think of an instance where discussion would need to be private, but just in case) email would be the appropriate method.

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. I spend quite a bit of time on Wikipedia as is, so I don't believe any extra time would be required. I do have a number of other responsibilities, but this is not uncommon of bureaucrats (Raul654, for example, is an arbitrator and the Featured Article Director, Angela is a member of the Board, etc.). Given that promotion/delisting is a group task, spread among the pool of available bureaucrats, rather than the responsibility of a single individual, I don't have any reason to believe that I wouldn't have the time to regularly check and promote or delist requests.

6. You have mentioned 70% as the low end of the contentious consensus range. Do you feel the community agrees with this low end of the range? When would you feel that someone who has between 70 and 75% support is worthy of promotion? Do you think your standards are consistent with the current bureaucrats and the past practice? (added by NoSeptember)

A. I believe the 70% figure represents the lower-end of what has been called the "supermajority." Wikipedia is, of course, based on consensus decisionmaking, and strict percentages are not the ultimate factor. I believe that an editor with a large amount of support, and perhaps with a significant number of neutral votes, may have achiheved consensus even if the strict percentages fall on the lower end of the 70% range, especially if the oppose votes have not been particularly strong (i.e., a large number of "weak oppose" votes). I believe the community has faith in the bureaucrat staff to make the tough calls, and to take into consideration the reasons given for the various "votes." As far as my standards, I believe they do fall into line with current bureaucrats and past practice, primarily because it is not my standard that matters, but the community's. If the community standard changes, I will carry out the community's will. As I have said about admin decisions (such as deletion), the decision of the community is paramount; my own feelilngs on a given decision are simply irrelevant, and will not be a factor, period. Essjay Talk • Contact 14:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

(Removed earlier comment in favor of expanded one below)

I'm afraid that perhaps I haven't been clear; I was basing my comments off Wikipedia:Consensus, specifically these passages: Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus....The numbers are by no means fixed, but are merely statistics reflecting past decisions. Note that the numbers are not binding on the editor who is interpreting the debate, and should never be the only consideration in making a final decision. However, judgment and discretion are applied to determine the correct action. The discussion itself is more important than the statistics. The only thing I was trying to point out was that where it appears that the consensus is a support, but the numbers do not necessarily meet the magic 75% (noting that the guideline at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats changed from 70% to 75% in January, and was 70% for a long, long time), there is room for a bureaucrat judgement call, and that before making such a call, I would consult with others. Essjay Talk • Contact 14:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

7. Do you mind detailing what your unpleasant experience is with Jeffrey O. Gustafson? I think we should be told. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There was an RfC and an RfAr related to Jeffrey O. Gustafson; I certified the former, and supported the latter. I don't believe this is the proper place to go into the details; the archives of RfC and RfAr should provide sufficent explaination. I'm willing to discuss this on my talk page with anyone who is interested; I take his comment that his vote is totally unrelated at face value. Essjay Talk • Contact 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

8. A question similar to question 5 above: Do you have the time and do you have the desire to also visit WP:CHU on a regular basis to process username changes in a timely manner? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A: Most certainly yes. To be truthful, I found it odd that username changes weren't mentioned at all in the candidate questions; it seems as if nobody cares about those. I am fully dedicated to helping out wherever the community needs me, WP:CHU included. Essjay Talk • Contact 03:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

9. If this current request for bureaucratship fails, would you consider requesting again, in future? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A. Probably not. I've been here for a year, and I've been very, very active. I feel I've made myself well known enough for voters to know whether they trust me or not; I don't think the community's opinion will change much, barring some kind of mass change in personality. :-) I'm not one who seeks restricted privs as trophies, I seek them because I intend to use them, and because I feel the community wants me to help out in that way; if the community says they don't want me in a role/they don't trust me in a role, I'll find something else I can do. I made my request because a large number of people have asked me to run, which suggested to me that this was a role the community wants me to fill. If I find that I was mistaken, I will simply move on to other things. So, short answer: It's very unlikely. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

10. Currently (as of 26 March) the RfA for AzaToth (talk · contribs) is at 52 support, 20 oppose, which is 72%. This RfA has a number of things that differentiate it from a run-of-the-mill RfA, as demonstated by the discussion that has taken place. Would this RfA meet your previously stated criteria for discussing with other bureaucrats before closing? Please discuss why you think it does or does not warrant discussion and explain how your approach contributes to making Wikipedia better. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A. This is a difficult question, but not for the obvious reason. While I believe it is an excellent case study, and applaud you for raising the question, I cannot answer it. As I said above, I do not believe bureaucrats should comment in thier capacity as a bureaucrat on any active RfA. Although I am not currently a bureaucrat (hence the point of the request), the question requires that I comment as though I were one. The only honest answer I can give to the question (and exactly the answer I would give if asked after promotion) is: I'm sorry, but I am not able to comment in the capacity of a bureaucrat on any ongoing RfA. If you would like to offer a hypothetical "test case", however, I would be happy to do a "test run" on how I would go about closing it. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that answer. Since this RfA is due to close later today, perhaps you could give your opinion on it at that point? I don't know how to create a test case better than the real thing, and I'm not asking for you to tell me what the result would be, just how you would go about it. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, given that the closing of this RfA was, in my opinion, mishandled, I will enthusiastically support any attempt to bring reason and consideration to the process. I think it is a shame that the nominee's comments regarding reason and consideration on this RfB have been turned into the crusade against his candidacy. The nominee is free to answer this question or not, but I for one withdraw the question. I've change my support to my strongest possible support. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
AzaToth's RfA has now been closed. User:Essjay may now indicate how he would have handled this, and why. -- Cecropia 03:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm taking this page off my watchlist, as, well, waiting expectantly for any new comments or questions can drive a person nuts, and there are other things on the project that need my attention (CheckUser requests, for example). I ask that anyone who leaves me an additional question or comment that requires a response please leave me a note on my talk page. Essjay Talk • Contact 03:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Question from NSLE: What are your thoughts on Can't sleep, clown will eat me's 2nd RFA? What would you do if you were the first bureaucrat to come across this situtation? NSLE (T+C) at 01:22 UTC (2006-03-27)


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.