Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Linuxbeak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Linuxbeak

Final: (23/14/10) Ended 20:38 September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbeak (talk · contribs)

Alright, I'll run too. Andre poked me on IRC to run for bureaucrat, and I figure that it wouldn't hurt anything to do so. I have been using Wikipedia for at least a couple of years. I started editing anonymously from school about a year and a half ago, and I was finally compelled to join as a registered user on March 12, 2005. Like everyone else, I made some of the expected newbie mistakes, but I also learned quickly how to do things "the Wikipedia way". As a way of saying thanks to Wikipedia, I completely overhauled the Civil Air Patrol article, and with some effort and dedication (thanks in no small part to Bishonen), I sucessfully nominated the article to FA status. Just before I hit three months as a Wikipedia editor, User:AntonioMartin nominated me to the post of administrator, and on June 6, 2005, I was elected in. Shortly thereafter, on June 20, 2005, I was given channel operator permissions for the Wikipedia IRC channel, #wikipedia. Just yesterday, on August 29, 2005, I pledged to dedicate some of my abilities in programming and coding towards the development of the Mediawiki software.

I can say with confidence that I am one (not the one ;-) ) of the most active administrators on Wikipedia. I don't have any problem getting down and dirty when it comes to fighting vandalism and disruptive users, and as you can see from this, as well as my user page's history, I believe I have enjoyed at least a level of success in doing my job correctly. I try to be friendly with everyone, but even with those that I disagree with, I see value and strength in community. I am one who is willing to admit his errors and flaws as well as one who is willing to give second chances. I think of myself as fair, efficent and able.

I am running for bureaucrat now because I know for a fact that I can be trusted by the Wikipedia community. I strongly believe that the reason why I have been entrusted with a relatively large portion of responsibility in a relatively short period of time is because I have proven that I am, in fact, reliable and trustworthy. I also believe that it has come time that more existing administrators are elected to the offices of bureaucrat. I know that I am fully able to take on the extra responsibility and handle it to the better of Wikipedia. I am now asking you to allow me to demonstrate it even further by granting me the position of bureaucrat. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong support. Go, Linuxbeak, go! Great editor and admin. Andre (talk) 20:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. One of our most level-headed and careful admins. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support SqueakBox 20:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely support. Very engaged as an admin. Makes the rest of us look bad. Edit conflicted twice on this vote!-- Pakaran 20:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support This one's a "d'uh". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support 6 months for bureaucratship is too little on principle, but he's everywhere, so I must support.--Scimitar parley 21:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support - the experience is a bit light, but I've had nothing but productive dealings here, and no indication that the lack of time conceals anything worrying. Always good to see a name I know. Shimgray 21:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support Me and Redwolf24 stole your talk page messaging thing!!!! :-) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support You're very helpful on IRC...and why not another bureaucrat (as long as we don't have 5000 Template:Wink) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support I'm sure he'll make a great Bureacrate Tony the Marine 02:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Apoyo Fuerte!!! Linuxbreak is an awesome wikipedian who always works within reasonable parameters and has the mind and intelligence to be a bureaucrat, and help wikipedia go to another level in society of the 2000s. Let's celebrate early and have a Cuban cigar, Linux! Ooops! I forgot, Cuban cigars are not allowed here and, well, you are young...but you will win! Antonio (Puerto Rican) Cigarro Autentico Martin 12:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support – personally dealt with this user on a few occasions. User:Nichalp/sg 14:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  13. To me, the quality of a user's experience with the project matters more than its lenght. Ingoolemo talk 20:13, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
  14. Support Never directly interacted, but from what I have seen, would make a good bureaucrat Tintin 04:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  15. Merovingian (t) (c) 12:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support! --Kbdank71 16:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  17. Mild Support. Strong support in 6 months or so. --2mcm 06:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  18. Prevent editcountitis (or in this case, accountageitis). Linuxbeak is an excellent user. Radiant_>|< 08:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. I think Linuxbeak would make a good bureaucrat. — JIP | Talk 12:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  20. FireFox  T C 16:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support I haven't seen Linuxbreak in many if any edit wars, and only being around 6 months is a weak arguement. Falphin 20:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. If adminship is no big deal, then bureaucratship should be a formality. --MarkSweep✍ 16:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Looks like it's not going to pass, but I do want to register my support. Ral315 22:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Linuxbeak, you're an excellent admin and a very nice guy, but I think a bureaucrat should have a bit more than six months of tenure with the project. You have my full support next March (providing you don't go completely wacko in the meantime :-) — Dan | Talk 21:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    (PS - I don't know if I should really be voting since I'm a nominee too, so if the vote's close, I'll gladly change my mind — Dan | Talk)
  2. I agree with Dan that you need more time as an active participant, a registered user and an admin. Also, the edginess that you have shown in your dealings with users like JarlaxleArtemis (talk • contribs) and MARMOT (talk • contribs) is a problem for me. I think a bureaucrat needs to be more detached. I am looking forward to supporting you at a later date. FreplySpang (talk) 21:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    I appreciate your vote, and I agree with you: I have been edgy when dealing with those two. In my own defense, I must mention that Jarlaxle did in fact e-mail bomb me, and MARMOT to this day still vandalizes Wikipedia. It was through my "dedication", have you, that MARMOT was discovered to be the user behind the User:Love Virus vandalbot attacks. Still, I totally agree that I should be a little less edgy. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: too new. CDThieme 21:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I believe that "bureaucratship" legitimately requires judgement that is borne only of time and ongoing engagement in administrative and community-related tasks. Fewer than six months, no matter how intense the work during that time, is not enough. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, I'm sure you're an excellent admin and so, but six months is just not enough time and experience. Will support in a few more months. - ulayiti (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, despite his favorable background as an editor and as an admin. Six months is not what I would consider enough time for somebody to be promoted to the status of bureaucrat. --Sn0wflake 02:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose for a few reasons. First, as stated above, you haven't been here for very long. I think you should at least be an admin for six months before being promoted to b-cratship. Secondly, do we really need four new bureaucrats? The three who ran below are essentially stepping up in the absenceof Cecropia, Raul654, and Angela, who have other concerns at the moment. Third, I'm not too crazy about your last answer. You sound a bit cocky. Acetic Acid (talk) 06:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Like other oppose votes that have "meat" to them, I appreciate your feedback. However, I do have some fundamental issues with parts of your opposition. Ever since first voting on RFA, the entire notion of "we don't need any more bureaucrats" has struck me as a bit too conservative. I figure that if a person is deserving of a position of responsibility and if he or she has demonstrated maturity and reliability that would be expected, then why stop the person from being promoted? There isn't anything "wrong" with having more on a team rather than less; in fact, it strengthens the pool (see my response to Dragons flight's comment). I'm not accusing you of "disruption", per sey, because you hold a known stance. However, I think voting against somebody because "they're fit for the job, but we don't need anyone else" is the same as voting oppose because you disagree with the system. There's a reason why there's a "Requests for bureaucratship" section, and that's to allow administrators to request it. If there is a serious feeling that "we don't need any more bureaucrats", then let's get rid of the entire "Requests for Bureaucratship" section altogether. Now... second. You say my last answer is "cocky". I disagree. There's a difference between being "cocky" and being "assertive". Sure, I've made mistakes in the past. However, I also know that out of the thousands of contributions I have made, the vast majority of them are of quality. I'm not trying to make any attempt to brag; instead, I'm trying to show that my work is of a worthwhile nature. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, don't get me wrong. I would never oppose someone for the sole reason of "we have enough already." If they are qualified, they desire you. I just don't think you're qualified, at least not yet. Six months as an administrator and a year old account sound a bit more promising. As for the part about being assertive, it's great to have a positive outlook on your contributions. There have been a few times on RFA where I've seen people refer to themselves and their work as mediocre, poor, etc. But you sound a little too sure of yourself in that last answer. Even in the nomination foreword, you consider yourself "one of the most active administrators." You don't know that for a fact. I'll gladly support you in a few more months. Provided you don't go on a vandalism spree anytime soon, I'll have no reason to oppose you again. Acetic'Acid 21:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Okay, I can appreciate and understand that. Thanks for the reply! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. For short length of time with the project and the uneasiness I have with the tone of the comments you are making throughout this process. See also my comment below and Michael Snow's "neutral". Dragons flight 20:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  9. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I do think you are a fine contributor and admin, but I personally feel that beaurocrats must have a minimum of six months experience as an administrator before being promoted. Thryduulf 11:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Amazing admin and contributor but I think I'll wait for some more time.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Nothing personal, just not completely convinced we need that many more bureaucrats. Even if we do need to promote a few more, (as seems will happen), I would prefer ones with more experience. Jonathunder 20:47, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. I believe you will go many places, but I don't feel you have been on long enough, regardless of your number of edits. --WikiFan04Talk 19:03, 2 Sep 2005 (CDT)
  14. Oppose. Quoting Linuxbeak from above: I know for a fact that I can be trusted by the Wikipedia community. This statement strikes me as bizarre. Trust is something given to a person not assumed by that person. Simply on the basis of what Linuxbeak has written in his own self-nom I vote against. Oska 22:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    Wait, what? You're opposing me because I'm confident in my trustworthiness and my reliability to the community? I know that I'm trustworthy, and I know that the Wikipedia community can trust me. You're opposing me because I state that? I'm sorry if I sound exhasperated, but a vote opposing me because of something that I said... which if anything is positive... is unfair. Please elaborate. What is it that you find "wrong" with me stating that? I don't follow your logic at all. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    Look I'm sorry Linuxbeak but yr reply just contributes to my feeling that you lack maturity for this position in not seeing my point at all. Simply, I give credence to other people saying I respect and trust so-and-so rather than so-and-so proclaiming I am worthy of trust and respect. See the difference? The tone of yr self-nom is all rather demanding and self-promotional. And how people speak on Wikipedia is in my opinion a valid criterion for judging when careful and sincere communication is very important in fostering effective co-operation and community feeling. Oska 00:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    Also, all bureaucrat requests are self-noms... Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    I used the term 'self-nom' merely in its descriptive sense and not as a criticism. Oska 00:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I always find "voting neutral" to be a weird thing, but I feel a need to express my views here. As noted, Linuxbeak's experience is relatively short, and I would add that some of the points mentioned in his favor have little bearing on whether he would make a good bureaucrat. Blocking vandals has no connection to the work bureaucrats do. I also find the tone of Linuxbeak's statement, which smacks of an election campaign (who are you running against?), a little out of place, which suggests an underdeveloped appreciation of community norms. This relates much more closely to bureaucrat qualifications, since they need to have a very keen sense of the mood in the room in order to make the right call in close cases. I don't think Linuxbeak completely unqualified, but my concerns leave me close to opposing. Finally, I would say that if Linuxbeak is serious about working on MediaWiki development, his efforts are needed far more there than with the very limited set of tasks handled by bureaucrats. --Michael Snow 23:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Maybe he is a little new to be a bureaucrat, but maybe not. But I feel he's a great guy and would probably be a good bureaucrat. --Phroziac (talk) 02:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Just as I think you need three months before getting admin, a bureaucrat should have a fair while, I think. Neutral for now, but "yes" in six months - Linuxbeak is a fine and clueful admin who got up to speed quickly - David Gerard 12:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Like others, I would prefer a few more months of experience serving as just an admin. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Linuxbeak, you know what I think already, and Michael and David already said it again. Not no, but not now; keep doing a fine job as an admin and think about running again after some more time has passed. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. I'm on the fence since Linuxbeak is a great contributor and likely deserving, but I'm a little concerned by the recent upsurge in the number of bureaucrat nominations. Would support a later nomination, if it weren't a self-nom. --Alan Au 23:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    Bureaucrat nominations are always self-noms. Andre (talk) 00:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I won't worry about that part of it then. Still, even though I feel bad about it (because he really does do a good job), I can't quite bring myself to fully support so soon after his adminship. --Alan Au 09:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutral leaning weak support. Linuxbeak is a great admin and Wikipedian; I do not question that for a second. However, while I feel that adminship should be no big deal and handed to nearly all good faith and civil users, bureaucratship IS a big deal. Other than closing some more VFDs as speedy keeps, I do not see sufficent experience in determing consensus on other things. Also, the user is newer than I would like to see in a bureacrat (preferably at least a year.) Having said all that, I simply cannot oppose such a hard-working admin. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:06, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutral, absolutely nothing against the editor, but I concur with the thought that he may need more time as an admin before jumping into bureaucratship. I would definitely support in the future. K1Bond007 21:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  9. NeutralRobert McClenon 19:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Neutral

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

Comments

  • Question: Linuxbreak, your answers seem to be strangely missing something I would expect to see in a forum like this, so I am going to give you a chance to have a try at it. Why do we need another bureaucrat, and how will you, in that capacity, benefit the community? Sure, good editors and admins deserve a pat on the back, but that in itself is not a reason to keep giving them more power. Your statements in the introduction are coming across to me as something like: "I've been good, please reward me" (An oversimplification, I know, and probably not how you meant it). I'd much rather hear something along the lines of "If you trust me with this, I'll use the power to make the world a better place, and here's how:...". So, would you care to take a go at explaining why making more bureaucrats, and you in particular, will be good for the community? Dragons flight 21:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure. I want to think of the bureaucrats as a team. A team, like a chain, is only as strong as it's weakest link, and that is why only the best are accepted to be on the team. Likewise, a team may be strengthend by adding a strong player. Our bureaucrats are swamped; Angela is constantly busy with the Wikimedia board, Raul654 is similiarly busy, and Cecropia is going on a Wikiholiday. With each new task, the effectiveness of the bureaucrat team dwindles, and not because they aren't capable, but because they are swamped. I have proven to be an effective administrator, and I believe that I can also be an effective bureaucrat. By being a part of that team, I can utilize my skills and energy towards productivity. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:41, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was in error - it looks like it really is too early. Ah well, at least now you have a sneak preview of next time. Andre (talk) 02:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. I have. To become an administrator is not just a matter of what the overt consensus reflects. I know that this has happened in the past: an editor receives a fair amount of votes, both for and against his or her promotion, and then it is discovered that both sides have been using meatpuppets or socks. At this point, the bureaucrat must assess the situation. How much influence did the unfair votes have on legit voters? Is there evidence of a past dispute that might have triggered this? Is there evidence of a "herd mindset"? All of these factors must come into play. Unless there is no evidence whatsoever of vote tampering or manipulation, an RFA is not as clear-cut as an 80% consensus. Every case is different; it is up to the bureaucrat to investigate and determine the correct action, and then consult with the other bureaucrats.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Undoubtedly, some users might not be the most popular. However, popularity has absolutely no business entering the arguement over consensus. If an editor has reached at least an 80% level of consensus (more or less), then that editor is to be promoted. As I have stated before, I don't have any issues with getting my hands dirty and upholding what Wikipedia has set forth as established rules and policies.
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. First, I'm going to be ever-so-slightly unoriginal and steal from Andre's nomination. My contributions are hereby laid out in front of you, and I invite you to audit them. I also invite you to look at my block logs. I believe I do not only follow Wikipedia policies, I also believe that I effectively enforce it fairly. As far as engaging others in the community, I've always been one to drag people I know into IRC. It is, quite frankly, one of the most effective places to learn about Wikipedia, and you get to make a lot of friends. I know I have.