Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andewz111


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

Andewz111
'''Final (0/3/0). This isn't happening, not with just over 1000 edits. Your crat experience from other wiki's is of no consequence since its not on any wikimedia wiki-- Jac 16888 Talk 00:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination
– I like to help with the project more. Helping with WP:BFRA, WP:CHU and WP:RFA/RFB would be great. I like working with large backlogs, and I already have Rollbacker rights. Please see other work from me (like on Wikianswers where I'm OpenBSDWiki) to see why. Puffy (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
 * A Yes. I think when a user is trustworthy, shows the right levels for the project, they can have the rights, plus community consensus.
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A I try to munch those opinions and make decisions. If I'm not sure, I create a discussion with 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 My role example for helping the project is overall adding content, fixing things up and I am a person who is a big supporter of the community. I follow the polices and even though I have went to WP:AN/I, I can easily resolve problems.

General comments

 * Links for Andewz111:
 * Edit summary usage for Andewz111 can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Andewz111 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Requests for adminship/Andewz111 redirects here. Just noting. Useight (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Filed it in the wrong spot, so I moved it. Puffy (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My sense from this self-nomination is that you believe bureaucrats to have a lesser level of responsibilities and tools than admins. This is not correct.  Bureaucrats are typically chosen from current admins.--~TPW 00:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry, no. At the very least I expect a bureaucrat to have some experience as an admin. How can you decide who'll make a suitable admin if you've never done the job yourself? – iride  scent  00:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done admin work on other wikis instead. You just don't see it here. I have the feeling that I need a shot at a lower level first. Puffy (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, but experience on other wikis doesn't count for anything when it comes to en-wiki. We currently have 12,375,609 users and 20,395,826 pages, but less than a thousand active admins—the "management" roles here are literally an order of magnitude larger than comparable positions on even our largest rivals, quite aside from the fact that when we screw up, it ends up in the papers, which generally isn't an issue on other sites. – iride  scent  00:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, but I can't support a non-admin. Apart from anything else, several parts of your job would be even more complicated without the admin bit and I don't feel you have sufficient experience here to be determining who gets admin rights- it's about much, much more than just ticking a box. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I'm going to side on the fact that "if a crat can be trusted, it doesn't matter if he/she is an admin". However, your answer to 1A is just flat out wrong. The decision to promote comes from neither yours nor any crat's beliefs, it comes from an evaluation of community consensus. Period. (Excluding the obvious uncontroversial re-promotions, etc.) -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 00:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To both comments above:
 * I personally think that that is not a good argument. I note that I can file for RFA later. But I don't need admin powers for many tasks. My job is to assign rights and rename users mostly, but yes, I will need the admin bits soon. Puffy (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)