Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Caulde 2


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

Caulde
Final (9/13/2); Ended 22:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

- I have decided that I'm going to go through the rigours of RfB, approaching almost a year after I went through RfA. It seems a long time ago now, and I have had much experience in that time as an adminstrator through the various, and obligatory, tasks set out for myself when I accepted nominations to be an administrator. I will be, if successful, a bureaucrat who engages with the wide-range of users here on Wikipedia through CHU, RfA and even bot management. I must admit that I have not been the most active contributor over the past 6 weeks or so, as I had real-life committments - but in that time I was observing the runnings of the community on AN, ANI, RfA, the recent ArbCom elections and even looking at bots and RfBAG nominations - some of which I have participated in, in the past. Only a few months ago I wasn't sure what the technical, and very much specific language meant in real-terms - but with the help of some sustained observation, I at least know a little more than before.

Reading over my opening statement from my last bureaucrat candidacy (as Rudget), I still believe the same when it comes to the ability expected of bureaucrats, I would fulfill the roles that I would take delight partaking in. I predict critism for some mistakes I have made in my administrator tenure, especially ones that punctuated even the very early days of the career. However, I shall openly discuss any issues editors would wish to raise.

The reason for me opening what could be seen as a hasty RfB is, I see all the time where other opinions could be added by another bureaucrat - where renames could be done when the other 'crats are busy (especially considering two of them are now standing for ArbCom), where RfAs could be closed et al. We all know that the now-infamous "crat chat" that takes place only rarely nowadays, is not an overwhelming reason for the additions of bureaucrats now but I will help out here also. I realise the significance of the need to carry out these tasks swiftly is relatively minor, but I still thinking injecting new oil into the cogs will help the system overall. With these words, I humbly request your consideration for this. Thank you. Caulde 13:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I gracefully withdraw ––from the Wikipedia I thought had changed. Caulde  22:16, 6 December 2008 (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. Not to be bashful, but I am going to copy most of what I wrote last time. I do not believe that the community has changed its stance significantly in that time period.


 * In theory, the promotion lies within the realms of consensus–and as the community is aware, the standards for promoting an administrator candidate is 70-75% at the lower end and anything above that being a bonus to the candidate, RFBs are generally held to a higher mark. However, in addition to this, bureaucrats (whether working single-handedly or in a 'crat-chat' when there is a consideration needed before closure) need to take into account the opposition (and neutrals) to form a proper picture of the candidate, and so consensus can be applied appropriately. Naturally, each candidate needs to be looked at as a whole - as I say, the opposers need to be taken into consideration; if a significant issue shows reason to doubt a candidate's ability to fulfill the admin tasks expected of them, this would have precedence over a simple support that contained just a signature. Saying that, bureaucrats also need to look at possible reasons for opposers doing just that - have they had run-in's in the past where they (the opposer) has been proven to be wrong? When multiple users voice similar concerns there will be significant doubt as to whether to pass the RfA or not. Consensus can change, and it isn't as so much the figures for either side demonstrating popular opinion as it is showing the ways in which the community trusts the candidate through their strengths. Admins have an obligation to act as a role model to the newer users, and the main criteria for them is key: trust and experience.


 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. Usually I find that when bureaucrats have to have a discussion on whether or not to promote a candidate, that the consensus usually lies in favour of a non-successful motion - contrary to that is precedent, however. Of course, opinion from the decision should be taken into the equation when thinking through the process - as I would very rarely 'pass' someone who has fewer than 70% of the community's support. Criticism is a fair point though, it does help bureaucrat's in their decision and if there was an extraordinary circumstance of heated debate, I would possibly implement an extension of the usual time period for RfAs. Sharing Will's (WJBscribe) position, it is in my opinion that the key to dealing with apparently contentious nominations is to make sure that discussions are fully-published, clear and not behind close doors. Being a bureaucrat does not give you the right to be part of a "private consensus".


 * 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. People have asked me for help many times before, I provide responses that often help discussions, I have a good knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia and know that policies are, contrary to some's belief, descriptive not prescriptive.
 * 4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
 * A. I already enjoy much of my experience in the first and last of those mentioned - as I say in my opening statement, I wish to expand my participation in the bot area.


 * Optional questions from Skomorokh
 * 5. Bureaucrats are expected to be paragons of neutrality and levelheadedness, which requires that they need be above drama and of a largely even temperament. What would you say to editors who found your recent break from the encyclopaedia lacking in these respects?


 * A. In reference to the break linked in your question, that was a regretful stage in my admin tenure, I've come to reflect on that particular incident as an over-reaction really - I reacted inappropriately and this affected my integrity somewhat. With regards to the most recent break, I expect the same things you mention in this question - time does not, in my opinion, affect these qualities seeing as these are mainly something you have or do not have. For those editors who have doubts over my ability to complete bureaucrat tasks, I give my word (whatever that may be worth) that I can carry these out to a complete extent.


 * 6a. Do you think that an individual's administratorship is dependent on sustained ongoing support from the editorial community, or solely on the judgement of Jimmy Wales and the Arbitration Committee?


 * A. It's difficult to determine, given that cases that go before Wales and ArbCom are usually exceptions that do not represent the overall administration of Wikipedia. In my opinion, I think the dependence of someone's ability to have access to the admin tools rests mainly with the community, as they are the ones who elected and (if significant) will be affected by any changes with that user. Wales and ArbCom can make decisions different to those of the community, but community consensus (or even opinion) should not be blindly ignored.


 * 6b. Do you think that bureaucrats should remove the admin flag from individual administrators if there is sustained editorial consensus that the community no longer supports their adminship (as demonstrated by an RfC for example)?


 * A. If there is "sustained editorial consensus" then that should be taken into consideration, as often - even if only ten or twenty users comment - it represents a community-wide thinking process. Bureaucrats shouldn't automatically remove any admin flags straight away however (by this I mean come to a decision to remove an admin flag and then consult meta stewards), they should consort between themselves on what they think the most effective outcome will be. 'Crats sometimes make bad decisions, but if there was consensus within them that the said admin had been disrupting en.wiki to an unreasonable extent, I see no reason why they shouldn't act upon their decision, unless of course there was an exceptional objection to doing so.


 * Optional question from AGK.
 * 7. In the same vein as my comment in the Neutral section below, I observe that a bureaucrat candidate ought to be well-known for being an incisive commenter across the project. This may take the form of closing deletion discussions or of commenting on project noticeboards, on article talk pages, on adminship-related discussions (including WT:RFA or WP:BN), or on Arbitration matters and proceedings. Could you provide some examples of contributions you have made that could be categorised as such? Thanks, AGK 14:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A I respect your comments – I know myself that I am not as well-regarded as perhaps some other bureaucrat candidates that have stood before the community in recent months, however, I do believe I have made mostly good decisions in my time - naturally, this rests with your interpretation of them. The one that sticks out in my mind is the Beamathan affair - I initially topic-banned Beamathan because of the edits I had seen him conduct a little earlier in April, he, as so many do, disputed the validity of such an action and upon further investigation by myself, I un-topic-banned fully about a week later ( discussion) with a what I think was a good explanation. I am farely well-known for the candidates I nominate at RfA (about 18 at last count) and I've made reasoned comments at ANI & AN before (example), considered other aspects of the discussion at XFD (one example), made suggestions on the bureaucrat's noticeboard (example), helped re-design the CHU page (with the grateful help of Nichalp), and made various comments on cases at ArbCom (example). As a featured-portal co-director, which I admit is not the most succinct of names, I have measured consensus in favour or against promoting featured candidates - examples of this are throughout the history of the FPOC pages.


 * Optional question from MBisanz
 * 8. Of the 3,500+ prior RFAs, only eight have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime; of over 100 prior RFBs, only two have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime. Which of the below would you have extended and under what circumstances and by what process would you extend an RFA in general?


 * A.
 * Jayjg further consensus needed by Cecropia:
 * Quadell Jimbo clarification by Cecropia:
 * ABCD sockpuppetry by Raul654:
 * Minghong further consensus needed by Cecropia:
 * Neutrality 3 further consensus needed by Pakaran:
 * Uncle G further consensus needed by Cecropia:
 * Weyes2 irregularities by Cecropia:
 * HolyRomanEmperor3 compromised account by Linuxbeak:
 * Diez2 further consensus needed by Cecropia:
 * Cla68 sockpuppetry/proxying by Taxman:
 * Benjah-bmm27 canvassing by WJBscribe:


 * Grunt further consensus needed by Cecropia:
 * Ral315 canvassing by Raul654:


 * 9. Francs2000, Optim, Eloquence, Danny, and Ugen64 were decratted at their own requests between 2004 and 2007. Of them all, the only controversial decrattings could be considered Ugen64 who resigned after a dispute over the promotion % for RFBs and Francs2000 who resigned after a dispute over tallying RFA results.  Danny's remains the unusual case of him resigning both crat and sysop rights and later being re-RFA'd, all in connection with his ceasing employment at the Wikimedia Foundation.  Which of these users would you re-crat if they asked at WP:BN and which would you require to re-run RfB?


 * A.
 * Francs2000:
 * Optim:
 * Eloquence:
 * Ugen64:
 * Danny:

General comments

 * See Caulde's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Caulde:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

 * Caulde, are you sure you are going to be an active bureaucrat; you've barely made 50 edits in the past two months. I think this is a bit premature, I think it would be better to do this in three months instead, when you're editing more actively.  Maxim (talk)  14:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What do activity levels matter? If the candidate does have the necessary qualities, but would make only a handful of crat actions in a given month, that still makes them a net positive, n'est pas? The existing crat cadre don't seem to be the most active of editors, but I can't say I've noticed many complaints on that account. Skomorokh  14:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that activity levels do matter, since (this somewhat of a trend I observe although it may have changed somewhat), the community are pretty hard on candidates if they're no urgent need for more 'crats so it's a bit illogical to me promoting someone's that's no going to be very active; secondly, I don't mind a bit of inactivity, but when's it's 50 edits in six weeks, that's way too low for an RfB or even an RfA candidate IMO.  Maxim (talk)  15:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with Maxim. Extensive activity isn't vital, but inactivity is not ignorable. AGK 15:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both for the replies, but I am not sure I follow your reasoning. Let's agree for the sake of argument that there is no great shortage of crats available to perform the necessary tasks; surely then, activity levels would be the last thing to take note of, as there is no pressing need that the candidate be prolific. I would have thought that lack of demand would mean that editors would demand a higher standard of judgement and experience first and foremost: if the sum of crat actions is sufficient, then the activity levels of an additional crat would only matter if that candidate would be expected to significantly raise the average standard of crat action. Skomorokh  15:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain the "hacking incident" please...? – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will do so now (see talk page). Caulde  15:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rudget's account posted a notice on his own userpage, phrased from a third party (rather than Rudget), that he had been involved in a serious car crash. This was later found out to be untrue, and Rudget's statement on the matter informed us that his cousin had been the one that posted the notice. User talk:Caulde/Archive/13 was the discussion that took place in tandem with the events in question. I will not link to the edit in question as I fear that would have the effect of opening up a rather unfortunate incident. AGK 15:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!  aye matthew  ✡ 13:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral.  aye matthew  ✡ 17:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - no troubling history. // roux     13:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose, see below. //  roux     16:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Support: Any trustable 'crat is a net benefit to the project - you're trustable and experienced and would make a good job of it, I think. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 14:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support Enjoys my unconditional confidence. I'm sure he will be an outstanding bureaucrat. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 14:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm here to have my photo taken on Santa Claus' lap...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for someone who does a great job and deserves 'cratship (and he's been so good that he deserves a nice toy or two from Santa Claus). Ecoleetage (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I analyzed his edits, there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Without a doubt.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) I have seen Caulde's signature come up many times, and I have find he handles himself with maturity and intellect. In my view, should make a fairly effective 'crat.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 18:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Do not know, but answers to questions are good. PXK    T  /C  19:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I don't care if he's made only x edits in the past month: he is a good, clueful user who I believe would make good use of the bureaucrat tools. Sam  Blab 19:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support 1000% yes. Per Shapiros10. Best, --Cameron* 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - per AGK, sorry but he hasn't proven his worth since the "hacking incident" and has also left the project once because of it and blaming me for his failed OTRS request which seemed a bit immature to me. Luckily he has managed to keep away from drama since then but I still don't see good reason to support him as well.-- Cometstyles 15:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I haven't seen the user around at all. I like bureaucrats to be seen around a lot giving their opinions on discussions etc.-- Patton 123  15:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per Maxim and Cometstyles. It's rather tough luck you got hacked, and I'm not saying here you're still irresponsible (no doubt you always log off/switch user when you leave your machine, and use other security techniques.) However, the responses to Cometstyles on Meta-wiki, the wikibreak that resulted from it blaming him, and the relative inactivity push me into the oppose section. Don't get me wrong, this isn't because you're a bad admin, it's just I don't think you'd be a very good bcrat. I'm sorry. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - answer to 6b shows a lack of basic understanding; crats can't remove sysop flags. They don't have the button. Only stewards, founders, devs. // roux     16:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My wording must be off, as you say stewards on meta can remove the admin flag. This can be done upon request; what I meant was 'crats can form a decision to consult with stewards. Hope this clears it up. Caulde  18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per roux and Cometstyles (and to a lesser degree, Patton).-- Koji †  16:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Very Weak Oppose. You're one of the very few, and perhaps only, non-bureaucrats with more edits to CHU than me, so I'm unquestionably confident you'd be great in the realm of renames. However, two things lead me to put my name in the oppose column. First is your recent inactivity. Taking a look at Bureaucrats evidences that only about half the bureaucrats are actively performing bureaucrat tasks. I'm personally of the belief that we could use several more bureaucrats, so we should at least try to ensure that the new ones will be active in their bureaucrat role. Also, Question 6b. Yes, it had unusual word choice, but you writing "Bureaucrats shouldn't automatically remove any admin flags straight away" sounds like you thought bureaucrats could remove the sysop flag, when they only have the technical ability to add the flag. Useight (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I assure you that none of my questions were written as trick questions. Skomorokh  16:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you had intentionally tried to trick Caulde. What I had figured you were going for was something along the lines of "Should bureaucrats have the ability to desysop?" But when you asked, "Do you think that bureaucrats should remove the admin flag..." it sounds like bureaucrats can currently do that. I'll alter the wording of my oppose because I also do not like it when other editors think I am implying something that I am not. Sorry. Useight (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, my question was phrased in such a way that implied a factual inaccuracy, but that was due to lack of familiarity with goings-on at that level rather than mischief. Mahalo, Skomorokh  17:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Mahalo"? I speak Tagalog and Mahalo means "To mix up", which I suppose could apply here, but upon looking for other meanings, it is apparently also Hawaiian for "thanks". Learn something new every day. Useight (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I hate opposing on any RfX, but I had the same thought as roux and Useight when reading the answer to 6b. Candidates for adminship are not expected to already be experts in all areas of being an admin, but bureaucrats have such a narrow remit that it is perfectly reasonable for us to expect Caulde to already understand the job completely.  This answer means that there is at least one gap (small as it may be) in Caulde's knowledge of the bureaucrat's powers and duties.  Where there is one, there may be others.  I advise Caulde to spend a lot more time hanging around WT:RFA and WP:BN in the future, as well as paging through the archives thereof, and absorbing the material and info found there.  I hope to vote support at WP:Requests for bureaucratship/Caulde 3, as by then he will surely have filled in the gaps in his knowledge.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - 6b. RockManQ Review me 17:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per CS.  miranda   20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I've been considering this for an hour. No offense, but I don't think we need many more bureaucrats and you've already given up your sysop bit for a little while to build content, if you become a crat it will only get worse. Maybe later? &mdash; C  eranthor 20:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per CS. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Cometstyles and concerns about communication skills. --JayHenry (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also per continued refusal to explain details of the bike accident. You have never explained how your "cousin" regained access to your account and emailed Flonight an oversight request.  I don't really care what the explanation is, but I care that you've refused to offer one. --JayHenry (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per CS, and also having followed the "hacking incident" and the retiring and returning, seems something unstable there. Dureo (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral
I would also note here that I am fully satisfied with Caulde as an administrator, and furthermore, regard him positively. The role of a bureaucrat is a tough and a unique one, however, and it demands a very particular type of editor; my intention is very much to ensure that I support only a candidate who is suitable, regardless of how friendly I may be with him. AGK 14:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Leaning oppose. I'm reluctant to oppose a candidate who is willing to assist the project (and indeed it is exceptionally rare that I do not support a candidate on RfA or on RfB), but I remain unconvinced that Caulde (neé Rudget) would be able to competently call a consensus on a close-cut discussion. The "cousin hacking" incident also overshadows this candidacy significantly and remains a concerning point for me. On the fence for now, but airing my views to allow the candidate (and others, if they wish) to rebut them. AGK 14:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me asking, are there any particular consensus calls (in AfD for example) that you think demonstrate this? Skomorokh  14:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will be commenting fully on those incidents (in reference to AGK) in a few moments. Caulde  14:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My complaint is not that Caulde's judgement is lacking; in fact, I think it happens to be satisfactory (a point which is exemplified by his solid performance as an administrator). However, a bureaucrat certainly demands significantly higher levels of incisive thinking and solid judgement; Caulde doesn't seem to have demonstrated that, from what I've experienced from him. Each current bureaucrat had, at the point their RfBs were filed, come to be respected voices in discussions across the project space (cf., User:WJBscribe, User:Rlevse). I intend no disrespect to Caulde, but my lack of immediate confidence in this candidate does concern me. AGK 14:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. Skomorokh  14:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!
 * 1) Some things said above, particularly per roux.  aye  matthew  ✡ 17:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.