Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Taxman

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] Taxman

Final: (94/3/1) ended 19:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Taxman (talk · contribs)

I’ve been thinking of how I could be more of an asset to the community, and with the recent resignation of Cecropia, and the expanded bureaucrat tasks, I think being a bureaucrat would be a good way. I’ve been an admin for almost a year and a half and an active Wikipedian for two years now. I’ve got experience in most areas of Wikipedia, and though I am not the most active admin or editor, I do plan to be part of the project for the long term. My proudest accomplishments are in gaining the respect of people involved in the featured article processes, and my part in promoting the need for high quality references, probably the most important thing we can work on as a reference work. I’ve studiously avoided creating conflicts and I’ve helped dispel quite a few. I don’t think anyone could come up with a diff where I was seriously out of line, and no, that’s not a challenge. :) Of course I’ve been more abrupt than and not always as civil as I would like at times, but I apologize if I think it would help where anyone has been offended.

Specifically as part of RfA, one of a bureaucrat’s most important roles, most people that have been around a while or read the archives will see my name checkered throughout the candidate pages and the RfA talk page history. I’ve participated in almost 100 RfAs among which I nominated 4 admins, all successful. I believe I can successfully judge community consensus to apply it when necessary. If anyone is wondering why I have reduced edits in April, I’ve been working on a big project in Wiktionary — I’m not going anywhere. Handling user renaming and bot flagging would be done based on the best interests of the community just as anything else I do. I believe I can be a valuable bureaucrat addition, and that the workload is not so great that I can’t be fairly active at it. Thank you - Taxman Talk 18:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - Wikipedia does need more bureaucrats and I think you'd do a good job. --Cyde Weys 19:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Can't think of a better candidate. Martin 19:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jkelly 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jaranda wat's sup 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. -- MarcoTolo 20:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Strong support. Bureaucrats are expected to be trusted members of the community; Taxman is, at least in my opinion, someone who can be implicitly trusted. He knows well of the issues surrounding RFA, and he has made a good case for the need for more bureaucrats. The answers to the questions don't make me think of any reason to oppose. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong supportbrainybassist
  10. Support! (per above) AndyZ t 22:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. ZOMG Support Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 23:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. I have carefully reviewed this editor's contributions and overall attitude. I find that he has many edits concerning policy and procedure in the Wikipedia namespace, which is exactly what I would look for in a candidate for this position. --Danaman5 23:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. An extremely level-headed contributor, well suited for 'cratship. BD2412 T 00:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Why Not Support. the wub "?!" 00:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Sure. joturner 01:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support Just look at your edit count! Weirdy 01:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    Uh what does that have to do with being a good B'crat? --W.marsh 01:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    I've seen his stuff, he has great stuff and contributions and appropriate manners. Weirdy 04:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC).
    Well, SPUI has a crapload of edits and he's a great B'crat, so there's a case study anyway. --Cyde Weys 04:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Will make a great b'cat. DarthVader 01:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Per Danaman5 TDS email 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Looking at his answers and past contributions gives me every reason to trust Taxman's judgement. Gwernol 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Obvious support per Gwernol, BD, Cyde, and Tito (in sum, [a] another bureaucrat is needed, [b] user is level-headed and generally well-respected and trusted, [c] user is well-versed in sundry Wikipedia policies and competent to close RfAs, and [d] answers to questions provide no basis on which to oppose and show an admirable belief in transparency). Of course, all that is outweighed by his only having made 2 image talk edits...or not. Joe 04:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support per Danaman5. _-M o P-_ 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Definitely. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. A good solid choice for this job. NoSeptember talk 07:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support —Whouk (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Thryduulf 10:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Definately. --Andy123(talk) 13:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Seems to be a fit candidate. -- thunderboltz(TALK) 13:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support, per Wynaut. But unprotect your userpage, eh? :) Stifle (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. The ideal bureaucrat., IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support, particularly per Johnleemk - David Gerard 16:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support It is time to give him the privilage. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Good record, thoughtful statement above. I would like to make it clear that I am not happy that Taxman protected his user page. That is a bad precedent, especially coming from a potential bureaucrat, is against the Wiki spirit, and I would urge Taxman to unprotect it eventually. However, Taxman did a good job at handling this situtation below, and I feel that overall one can't hold the page protection issue against him as it is not directly relevant to his job as bureaucrat. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. I had originally intended to vote neutral or abstain due to a relatively low level of activity, both editorial and administrative, and a couple mild and petty disagreements. However, Taxman has been with us for two years, and seems to know what he's doing. Reading the oppose and neutral votes below, I am convinced that they are irrelevant to Taxman's qualifications for this position. If that's the only fault you can find in this candidate, then with all due respect, you ain't got shit. Support. — Apr. 28, '06 [17:51] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  35. Absolutely support. Can't think of a better candidate. Dmcdevit·t 18:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. Strong support. This candidate is amoungst the most qualified and most trusted Wikipedians I am aware of. From what I've observed, he is also a veritable font of knowledge. While we've disagreed on Userbox policy, his actions have always been fair and judicious. He has especially shined in his effort to keep tax-protesting cranks from inserting inaccurate and potentially harmful misinformation in articles relating to the U.S. tax system. A valuable asset who deserves a promotion. --Dragon695 18:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for the kind words (and everyone else), but I must defer the credit for the tax-protester work to BD2412 and Famspear. I just assisted a little and provided guidance, they work on it day in and day out. - Taxman Talk 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. Gives a lot of confidence to anyone working with him. I have full faith in him. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Complete support. It is at best unclear that we need more bureaucrats, there being no evidence of a backlog of bureaucrat tasks, but if we're going to be adding any I'd want them to be as fine as Taxman. There are a small number of Wikipedians whose judgement, attitudes, conduct, and experience are so well-regarded that if they believe they could be useful in any additional role(s), I'm willing to support the conferment of such. Taxman is unquestionably one of them. —Encephalon 19:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support, although add my name to the list of users not happy with a protected user page. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support See below. Fine contributor if not for the protected page issue which is now resolved. --Durin 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support, even as one of the freuqent opposer's. I rarely have supported the last RfB's, but several Bcrats have resigned and there has been significant stress over certain RfA (like HRE). One more BCrat may be nice to have now. Also, he is a solid candidate, with a good base in RfA, and he actually recited promotion policy correctly. I am glad that we have a candidate willing follow this policy and not promote people with very low acceptance and no consensus. He seems to have a good steady edit count with serious edits (not a zillion minor ones) too (see "comments").Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 21:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support of course I'll support a great user like Taxman. Jedi6-(need help?) 23:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Can be only beneficial to the community. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support Have had very good experience working with this contributor on some of the economics-related articles. The emphasis on references is crucial.--CSTAR 00:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  47. I have confidence in this user's ability to gauge consensus and maintain common sense. Rob Church (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support Joe I 02:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Quite impressed with editor's willingness to compromise in the spirit of harmony. Xoloz 03:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support --Terence Ong 04:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support We need MORE qualified crats and I feel Taxman will make a good addition. Mike (T C) 04:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. As long as the user can be trusted to make good judgments on RFAs, I see no reason why we shouldn't appoint more bureaucrats. I trust Taxman to do so. Ral315 (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support -- I break my standard recusal to vote or comment on an RFB. Taxman is a fine editor and keeps his cool when things get a little hot. (Not to mention the usual banter on his username ;-) ) =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    All your incomes are belong to us? :) - Taxman Talk 15:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support per Ral315. Computerjoe's talk 14:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. — TKD::Talk 15:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. HenryFlower 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support; familiar with Wikipedia; works well under pressure; dedicated. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 19:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support feydey 00:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  61. SUPER EXTREME SUPPORT Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. The need, or lack thereof, for more bureaucrats has really has no relvance to any discussion of the qualifications of a particular candidate. This candidate is a dedicated, long-term editor, and I have no reason to vote oppose. Scimitar 05:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. More B-crats are needed, and Taxman is just about a perfect candidate. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. Taxman has been here for a very long time without controversy. We need an axtra bureaucrat or two, and I can think of few more qualified than him. Rje 10:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support: perhaps, we require few more bureaucrats so that the burden on the existing ones get reduced, not necessarily to enjoy the leisure. --Bhadani 12:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. Will definitely benefit the Wikipedia community as a whole.—G.He 16:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support. We need more bureaucrats like Taxman. (^'-')^ Covington 19:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support. Kukini 22:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support. of course. pschemp | talk 03:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support - more 'crats are always needed and Taxman fits any criteria I might have and more -- Tawker 04:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support. We are at a juncture where an extra bureaucrat would be a good thing. Taxman seems to be a good candidate with broad respect in the community. Zaxem 09:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support: --Ahonc (Talk) 14:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  73. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  74. support time for some new people to fill the vacancies.  ALKIVAR™ 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support. Sandy 01:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support. I trust him. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support Very good user, and a very good nomination text. I believe you'll do a great job as a 'crat. Funnybunny (talk/This Wiki needs your help!) 02:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support SlimVirgin's support is a very good benchmark. Merecat 07:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support a dedicated, reasonable, and responsible longtime user. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  80. Per the above... Without reservation, (except for the username. Down with taxmen! Now that the user page is unprotected I think I'll go vandalise it! ) Support ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support, long, steady, cooperative, noncontroversial history; has demonstrated reliability, common sense, discernment, and fairness; ideal reputation for bureaucrat. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support talk about squeaky clean, track record seems to indicate a near-ideal candidate. Just don't go insaaaaane on us now, okay? --W.marsh 20:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support. Excellent candidate for the job. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support Good choice! --IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support. --Rory096 08:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support, thoughtful admin. Incidentally, though, if admins protecting their userpages (and yes, mine is semi-protected) is going to be debated, it should be debated as policy, not in the form of going after a particular user who happens to be vulnerable because he's running for bureaucrat. Chick Bowen 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  88. I seem to remember that Cecropia did the bulk of the bureaucrat's work, and we need someone to fill the vacuum. I have enormous respect for Taxman, and thus spring on the chance to support his candidacy. Ingoolemo talk 00:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support •Jim62sch• 01:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support, the only objection I saw was his protection of the Userpage and I believe it is a right of an admin (although have not done it myself) abakharev 05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support. Taxman would make an excellent bureaucrat, and we do actually need another bureaucrat at the moment. --Alan Au 08:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support. -Tone 16:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support I personally don't think protecting your user page is a big deal at all. --Bachrach44 16:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Changed to support. I've carefully reviewed this editor and would gladly and strongly support if not for the fact that he has permanently protected his userpage. He's done this despite there never having been any vandalism to his userpage. In fact, the only edits that were done to his userpage by people other than himself were corrections done by other users, not vandalism. A user page is not strictly yours. There are a number of reasons why a userpage can be edited by other people. Preventing your userpage from being edited can cause every bit as much disruption as having it vandalized for a short time. If in your entire time here your user page has never been vandalized, I fail to understand the logic in using a tool largely intended to stop vandalism. I concur with Cynical here. This is decidely anti-wiki. I've read each of the two dozen postings you've made in the last year to WT:RFA and am very pleased by the answers. I think you'd make a fantastic bureaucrat. Unprotect your userpage and make assurances you will keep it that way unless it suffers vandalism and I'll change to support. --Durin 12:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I admire that type of dedication to read all those. The only reason it has never been vandalized is I protected it very soon after I became an admin. I specifically disagree with "Preventing your userpage from being edited can cause every bit as much disruption as having it vandalized for a short time." because it can't really, there has been no disruption over it. The policy specifically allows it, see below. It was brought up on WP:AN and no one else objected to it, so it's not like I've been flouting community consensus or anything. So I've never had a reason to change my mind. It's been very nice not having to worry about it being vandalized. So you say it's anti wiki, but I believe it's pro wiki because it allows me to focus on helping the wiki instead of wasting time. The tool has done exactly what it should. It has protected against vandalism. So while I believe the policy is on my side, I respect your right to disagree with me and to oppose my RfB. As a follow up if there was a consensus to change the policy and make it clear it was not allowed, I would disagree, but of course comply with it. - Taxman Talk 12:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
"In other words, [semi protection] just like full protection, it is a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure" from Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. "These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful" from Wikipedia:Protection policy. I note that Wikipedia:Protection policy says "Some admins feel the need to protect their own userpage. Some others feel they shouldn't do this. This is not generally a big deal". However, this line was added by User:Radiant! on January 18, 2006 [1] without any discussion on the policy's talk page, nor anywhere else as far as I can tell. I note that {{policy}} says "but please make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus before you make them". This was not followed by Radiant; his change is therefore unsupported by consensus. As I cited above, policy otherwise disagrees with your position on this matter and I retain my opinion that you should remove your pre-emptive protection of your userpage. I'll sweeten the pot a bit; take off the protection and I'll put your userpage on my watchlist to help undo any vandalism to your userpage. I note that you said this was brought up on WP:AN, but you provided no cites. I went back through the last 5,000 edits on WP:AN without finding anything referring to this topic from you. Cites please? --Durin 14:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we just keep this in one spot in comments now? - Taxman Talk 15:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Strong Oppose per my usual criteria. Great user, but we do not need more bureaucrats. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Could you explain why we don't need more bureaucrats? Besides promoting admins, bureaucrats are involved with changing user names and bot flagging. Also, it is not as if the bureaucrats get a salary from the Wikimedia foundation or something. One should be really conservative about appointing too many bureaucrats as they have great power, but every now and then promoting truly exceptional users will do nothing but benefit Wikipedia. So wonder if you could explain yourself. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose due to attitude towards Wikipedia policy (see my neutral vote revocation, and the comments section, below) Cynical 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Even at the current moment, Wikipedia:Protection policy states that "Some admins feel the need to protect their own userpage. Some others feel they shouldn't do this. This is not generally a big deal.". While I strongly disagree with userpage protection, and have made a lot of fuss about it in my vote above, I have read very carefully the comments by Taxman below, and I believe it is unfair of you to blame Taxman for ignoring Wikipedia policy when the policy contradicts itself, and since Taxman had unprotected his user page long before you made this oppose vote anyway.
    All I see by reading Taxman's comment below is are very carefully worded statements and a genuine desire to follow Wikipedia policy and community consensus. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    Disclaimer. I seem to have taken issue with the two oppose votes above. This is by no means a way of defending Taxman, I never interacted with him before this RfB vote, and this RfB is bound to pass in either case. It is just these two votes strike me as built on frivolous reasoning, so I could not abstain from not commenting. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - On an intuitive level, I think the other opposers understand why protecting one's own user page is wrong, even if it's hard to put into words. I'm going to put it into words: administrative and bureaucratic tools are to be used only for the good of the community, and not for personal gain. The fact that this didn't even occur to Taxman, or that he justified it as helping the community in a round about way, shows that he isn't even qualified to be an administrator, let alone a bureaucrat. If protecting his own user page gives him more time to spend helping the community, wouldn't that same logic apply to others as well? Why doesn't he ask others if they would like their user pages protected or semi-protected against potential attacks? Why hasn't he campaigned for all user pages to be locked against editing by anyone but that user or an administrator? If one locked user page improves productivity that significantly, how much more constructive would we be if all user pages were locked against vandals? An administrator's first responsibility is to look after those who do not have the tools. When he can demonstrate this humility, then he has gained the most important quality of an effective bureaucrat. --Dragon's Blood 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral would be a strong support if it wasn't for the permanent userpage protection. Permanent protection of pages is damaging to the project. See WP:USERPAGE: 'Protected pages in user space should be unprotected as soon as practical.' Cynical 09:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Changed to Oppose due to the candidate's rather strange assumption that he can violate WP policy so long as there's no explicit consensus against his specific violation. (see comments section below) Cynical 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Neutral On the one hand, you have an exemplary record, answered my question well, and will likely make a fine b'crat; on the other, Durin is right that userpage protection is bad form (not the end of the world, but a b'crat is a Wikipedia functionary, and "an official face" of the project), I still believe we don't really need more b'crats, and recent b'crat controversies have me even more tentative than usual. All this adds up to neutral. Xoloz 15:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Changed to Support after userpage unprotection. Xoloz 03:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. I agree with Durin that your user page doesn't need to be protected. Then again, that is a very trivial matter. I can tell from your contributions list that you are highly involved in the Wikipedia community, but I don't recall ever interacting with you myself. So, I don't feel like I know you well enough to trust you with bureaucratship or to oppose your request. --TantalumTelluride 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Just a question, not really relevant, why is your user page protected? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Because I don't see the value in wasting any time on reverting vandalism to it and I don't see a pressing need for anyone to edit it. If someone does need to edit it, they can ask me or another admin to do it. So combining no real problem with it being protected with a small gain seems worth it to me. And I'd rather not have it exist in a vandalized state for even the small time it would take for it to get reverted. There's better things to work on than watching my user page. - Taxman Talk 20:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Durin and Cynical have noted they think this is a problem. I don't per my reasoning immediately above and Wikipedia:Protection policy which states "Some admins feel the need to protect their own userpage. Some others feel they shouldn't do this. This is not generally a big deal." and has stated similar for a very long time. I interpret that as specific exception to the general rule of protection being considered harmful. WP:USERPAGE is a guideline not policy. - Taxman Talk 12:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
        • As noted above, the line you cite from that policy was added by User:Radiant! on January 18 with no prior attempt at consensus gathering. I find no prior record of this being part of the policy before his addition. Other elements of that policy and another, plus a guideline cited by Cynical disagree with Radiant!'s addition. --Durin 14:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Radiant presumably added that based on the AN discussion where there was no major opposition to it. And I appreciate the offer to watchlist my user page, but I don't feel that's enough. I really don't want to unprotect it because I don't want any vandalism on it. Again, there are better things to work on. I believe it is supported by the spirit of the policy that allows protection of high visibility pages, specifically I believe it meets the exception in the part you've bolded above. If I become a bc it will be even higher visibility. And again I'm comfortable if you continue opposing based on what you feel, because I believe it is supported by the policy and not a major problem. Again, unless there is a specific consensus to not allow protecting it, I'd like to keep it this way . - Taxman Talk 15:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the cite. I don't see any consensus there. I see a reasoned discussion with people in favor and opposed, and some lukewarm. I note that one of the ones in opposition is a bureaucrat; just as visible as your userpage would be if you became a bureaucrat (User:Ilyanep). Further, I still don't see any discussion on the policy's talk page where this should have been discussed before making the change to the policy. In the cite you noted, there's no consensus and there's no further discussion anywhere else on the point. I think the line Radiant! added should be removed as it strongly disagrees with several other areas of policies and guidelines and was not put in as a result of consensus. With regards directly to you, I just don't see the harm in unprotecting your userpage. It's never been vandalized, and others have edited it constructively. Protection should not be used pre-emptively except in extreme cases. I don't see how your userpage counts as an extreme case. You're no more special than anyone else around here. I would *really* not want to see all userpages of admins/b-cats protected. And there's the rub; this doesn't scale. Do you think it would be a good idea for all admin pages to be protected? If not, what makes your userpage special that it should be protected and the rest of admin pages not protected? Where do you draw the line at against-policy pre-emptive protection? On this RfB, you've had four users request you unprotect the page, and one question why you've protected it. Yet, you maintain your position on something in policy that was added without consensus and significantly disagrees with other elements of policy. I think this demonstrates intransigience. This isn't a quality I'd like to see in a bureaucrat. --Durin 15:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
              • I don't know how much more clearly I can state that if there is a community consensus against it being protected I will unprotect it. I do not believe that exists, and there hasn't been much time for it to emerge. That wording and similar has been in the policy for quite some months now with no objection. I do note several users have agreed with you here, but also note several more have supported me without agreeing. I am taking the position of those agreeing with you into account. If you feel it is important enough, create a discussion on the blocking policy talk page, link the relevant past discussions and place notes from various important places like AN and VP to the discussion. That will decide the issue at the right place for the discussion, which I don't think here at a lone RfB is. I will let someone else call the consensus and abide by it if there is one. I'm not being intransigent, I'm sticking to my guns until there is clear reason not to and I'm not buckling at the first hint of opposition before a firmer position exists. I believe that is exactly what I should do as a bc, even if some people would be happier if I immediately capitulate. - Taxman Talk 16:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

de-indentingI too do not feel this is the appropriate forum to be discussing the changes in the policy. I would however like to make it clear that:

  • There was no consensus to have changed the policy, making the policy change improper.
  • The change stands against prior existing policy, and even if no one has raised a protest against it (which is false) you should not assume that it is therefore acceptable.
  • You stand in opposition to policy as cited above, which was generated by consensus, waiting for consensus to develop to tell you to adhere to previously garnered consensus. If this is your idea of understanding and adhering to consensus, than I fear your understanding of consensus is seriously lacking and would significantly hamper your ability as a bureaucrat. This is a fundamental issue for bureaucrats; at RfA all you do is determine consensus.
  • You stated above that "there was no major opposition to [the policy change], and right off you discounted admin User:Phroziac's and bureaucrat User:Ilyanep's opposition to protecting userpages. How many comments from RfA voters are you going to discount?
  • The clear reason you have for reversing your position is that the policy was changed without garnering consensus, and existing policy stands in opposition to the change Radiant! made. Are you going to stick to your guns on every improper change that is done to policy? What about at RfA? Are you going to stick to your guns if someone decides without consensus to make it policy that only those with 1500 or more edits can be nominated?

Frankly, I'm very surprised and dismayed by your behavior with regards to this. Everything else I read from you points to a rational, friendly user who works with and not against the community. Refusing to yield when you stand in opposition to policy stands in stark contrast to your prior patterns of behavior. --Durin 18:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I think, in the interest of full disclosure, that it should be pointed out that Durin's interest in having all userpages unprotected is, at least to some degree, self-serving vis-a-vis his jihad on fair-use images in userspace. Not only is he wasting peoples' time with this unnecessary campaign (not to mention pissing off a lot of editors), he is attempting to block an otherwise outstanding candidate because of this petty disagreement. --Dragon695 19:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Since I am an administrator, a protected page does not stop me from removing fair use images from userpages. Thus, it has no bearing here as page protection would not and should not stop me from protecting the project against copyright complaints. Furthermore, Taxman's userpage does not have any fair use images on it, thus it being protected would have no bearing on this issue regardless of whether I was an administrator or not. Further comments in response to this directed to Dragon695's talk page where it belongs. --Durin 19:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe that my behavior in this is perfectly acceptable — what better could you ask that I do when I disagree? If you can think of anyway I could be more polite or address this more equitably, let me know. I've stated my position, why I feel that way, and why I feel policy supports my view. Then I've made it clear I'm willing to modify my position (against my own feeling on the specific situation) with discussion in the appropriate place, and I've asked if you would start that conversation there. You disagree with my view and so do some others, which is increasing, making me lean towards that being the consensus. And I'm taking that into account. I'm not sure how I can be more accomodating or follow more closely to the spirit of what we are trying to do, unless it is without appropriate discussion. It has been 24 hours since the concern was raised here, there is still time for an appropriate resolution without getting so heated about it. You disagree with me, but I believe we can resolve it successfully. Calm discussion rules the day, and again, lets have it in the appropriate place. If you're ok with it, let's carry on further discussion on the appropriate policy talk page. We can work out how to present it most fairly wherever you choose. - Taxman Talk 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I fully agree. I simply disagree with your position that policy supports you. I've shown how that one phrase of policy that you feel supports you was added without any consensus garnering being performed, and that several other passages of policy and guidelines disagree with it. --Durin 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • They're passages now? :) Anyway I understand you disagree, so would you like to do the honors starting the discussion or should I? - Taxman Talk 20:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Feel free to do so if you like. I considered starting it, or just removing it as an unsupported change but considered such action would be perhaps inappropriate until this RfB is closed. I'm a patient person. There's little/no damage being caused by having that passage (and yes, it's a passage, as in "a usually brief portion of a written work" :)) in the policy for the next week. --Durin 20:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well after creating the wording for a discussion about this, I reallized that putting it up and leaving it in the archives would be publicizing the violation of WP:BEANS to a much greater degree than it already has been. While I still feel that there is no value to allowing vandalism on my userpage when we know there is a nearly 100% chance that it will happen, there are at least 5 people that have stated they don't believe it is right to have it protected, with no one explicitly agreeing with me, and there is conflicting policy on the issue. I'm unprotecting now, and I'll take Durin up on the offer to watchlist my userpage as well as anyone else. I am going to be away from the computer until around 16:00 UTC tomorrow, so I'm not ignoring further requests; I'll respond then. - Taxman Talk 20:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to support. Thanks! I've added your userpage to my watchlist. --Durin 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the watchlisting, and I'm out again until some time Monday unless I get some unexpected free time. - Taxman Talk 17:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I really do not understand the fuss about protecting user-pages. I know that it is not the property of the user, but it is considered their "space" until the account closes. I have had my user pgae vandalised numerous times: "turd", "dude, you've got a ###### up name" ..., and I find it extremely irritating and embarassing, and in this case, I have protected my page. I fail to see how it will "hurt" Wikipedia. Other editors will not feel "deprived" or untrusted if they are unable to correct someone's bio — that's just an illogical observation. Editors are here to edit articles and participate in discussions, not to focus on making user pages gramatically perfect. The fact of the matter is that most edits to userpages are usually vandalism (show me a couple of constructive edits to a userpage by an Anon etc, and then I might change my mind). I really think that its downright stupid to oppose someone because they have protected their userpage (and support them when they have unprotected it), knowing full well that the protection policy refers mainly to articles, not userpages. (In fact, it even acknowledges that "A permanent or semi-permanent protection is used for user pages and their subpages that are subject to repeated vandalism."). And, I'm kind of disappointing that User:Durin used this to blackmail — yes, that's how I see it — User:Taxman. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Total edits     9058
Distinct pages edited   3954
Average edits/page      2.291
First edit      23:57, 21 August 2003
        
(main)          3865
Talk            1188
User            157
User talk       980
Image           1
Image talk      2
MediaWiki       1
MediaWiki talk  6
Template        28
Template talk   14
Category        4
Wikipedia       2347
Wikipedia talk  465

Edit summary use for this user (over the last 2000 edit(s)): 99.9%
Significant edits: 78.5%
Minor edits (non reverts): 16.55 %
Reverts: 4.95%

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 and it has long been held that under 75% support is not generally to be promoted, while over 80% is a shoe in. That of course would vary slightly if massive abuses such as sockpuppeting, etc. have occurred.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Discussion with other bureaucrats of course. As long as the process is transparent and the relevant factors are considered, we have to make choices and move on. Not everyone will be happy with the outcome, but if done with respect and collaboration among bureaucrats (which are of course trusted editors), then at least everyone can be comfortable with how the decision was arrived at. In the end I'm comfortable taking the heat if I can say I did my best to take all issues into account and I have the backing of the other bureaucrats.
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 I've always worked to follow that from day one, and that I've gained respect commensurate with it. I've been able to successfully handle a number of tough situations with an outcome that was best for the community, and my conduct has generally been regarded as fair.
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. Of course. Transparency is very important for a process like this that affects the community, so keeping conversation among bureaucrats, but open to review is an important part of that.
5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?
A. Yes, I'm on Wikipedia almost daily, and I have no problem making RFA a part of each day's work. I don't foresee it being a significant time drain even with the expanded role. If anyone would like expanded answers or additional information, please let me know.

Question from Joturner:

6. It's written somewhere that one's number of edits does not reflect one's value as an editor. However, I notice you have around 8250 edits over a period of two years. That's not too too bad, but in my opinion that's low for someone requesting bureaucratship. Is there a reason for the overall low edit count? Is it the type of edits you make?
Well I would agree more with your first statement than the rest. :) Much more important than edit count is how I've handled myself and what I do to improve the project, though in conjunction with other factors an edit count can give a modest indication of contributions. But I'll also say that I don't do many programmatic edits that take only a couple seconds or less. I think over and check out relating factors for the lion's share of my edits, and I do a substantial amount of research for many of them. I also have a life away from the computer that takes precedence at times, so I have less time available to edit than many Wikipedians. - Taxman Talk 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I misread your edit count in the (outdated) edit counter. joturner 01:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zzyzx11:

7.Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:CHU on a regular basis to see that change requests are processed in a timely manner? Do you also have the time and the desire to monitor WP:BRFA and process approved bot flag requests too?
Those are probably where new BCs are needed the most, and CHU would honestly be the one I'd help out with more at first. As for bots I'd first only help with the ones with stronger consensus as I don't have nearly the level of experience and expertise with that area of policy as I do with RfA for example. But it's more fun and valuable than changing usernames so I'll get more into it. Learning and growing is the goal. - Taxman Talk 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Question from Xoloz:

8. In light of recent events, under what circumstances would you impose additional suffrage requirements on a suspect RfA?
I'm not convinced that's the right solution so I may never do it. But you didn't ask that :), so to answer your question, I would do it if it became clear that it does work, and if there was a bureaucrat consensus that it was a good idea to try again. The current trial could help in ironing out if it is feasible to use more. - Taxman Talk 12:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Question from Richard Cavell:

9. The edit count requirements for promotion to admin status have crept upwards lately, to the point where an editor with with over 3700 edits can be labelled 'inexperienced' (see Master of Puppets' RfA above, and there are others). Do you agree with this? Would you take edit count into consideration with a contentious RfA? - Richardcavell 13:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Editcountitis is getting to be a problem. Raising standards for admins is fine and good, but focusing on edit counts and unrealistic expectations is not good. Not everyone has 20 hours a day to work on the wiki and that's a good thing, but because some people do have that time, it skews the perceptions a bit. We need more people that are balanced and have important things outside of the project because they provide balance, and new perspective and experience. The intangible qualities take more effort to judge, but are more important. But I can't stress enough that as a bureaucrat I would be charged only with determining community consensus, not deciding anything for myself about the candidate. The only thing my view about edit counts could effect is discussions on the main RfA talk page. - Taxman Talk 14:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Question from Geni:

10. Over the last 4 months you have just 65 logged admin actions (deletion protection and blocking). Since these are the action most simular to to buracrat actions how do you plan to change you current pattern of activities when elected.Geni 13:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a ton beyond picking up regular monitoring of WP:RFA, WP:CHU, and WP:BRFA and participating in bc discussions as needed. Besides prioritizing my time by interest like everyone else, I tend to gravitate towards where I feel my skillsets can be most valuable. That currently means I spend a lot of time on article review activities and not as much on RC patrol, etc. Thoroughly reviewing an article means a lot of effort expended for one edit to place the review comments. But as mentioned above I believe I will be valuable as a bc, so I plan to make that a regular part of my activities. - Taxman Talk 16:37, 1 May 2006 (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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.