Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Golbez

Golbez
final (4/5/5) ending 21:55 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been here for... I'd guess about 14 months now, which is odd because it feels like a lot longer. Anyway, as I near 8000 edits and doing CSD/RC patrol, I started thinking, I could help Wikipedia in other ways too, and decided to request bureaucratship. Here we are. I will admit I have not participated in some admin activities such as monitoring VfD and CP, but time permitting I shall begin. --Golbez 21:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) support. Kingturtle 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 07:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Andre ( talk ) 20:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) By Golbez's own statement, s/he is not experienced in all areas of admin. I have said before that I think that while we have enough bureaucrats, the criteria for appointment should be stringent to the point of excluding all but paragons. In my opinion, any new bureaucrat should have extensive exemplary experience in every aspect of admin. Golbez looks good, but while we have enough bureaucrats I seek 'great'. --Theo  (Talk) 22:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * He. :) --Golbez 22:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 23:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, for the same reasons as Theo . Nothing personal, Golbez...my few interactions with you have been positive, and I think you're a solid admin. --MikeJ9919 14:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Read my lips: no new bureaucrats   →Iñgōlemo←   talk  23:36, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
 * Should anyone think that my comment was malicious, I must feverishly insist that that notion is unfounded.  →Iñgōlemo←   talk
 * 1) Bureaucrats need to have participated in all admin work before being made bureaucrats. Scott Gall 07:50, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Nothing personal, Golbez, but I don't see a need for more bureaucrats. Bratsche talk  random 23:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) With more participation in VFD and such, I will change my vote to support. Linuxbeak 21:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Seems like a good user..although I'm not sure if we need more bureaucrats (I may change to support).--Comrade Nick @ )---^--  09:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't think we need more bureaucrats. Sorry. If we end up needing some more later (or someone can prove my suggestion that we don't need more false) then I will support. BrokenSegue 02:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) You're perfectly fine and very nice, but I don't think there need to be any more bureaucrats...at least not right now. Mike H 02:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Given that there is a group of people who hold the view that "we don't need more bureaucrats" (which I think would make enough votes to sink candidacies), it might make sense to get rid of this section altogether (or move it to a separate, sparsely populated page) in order not to entice people into nominating people. --JuntungWu 12:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with JuntungWu. If there are a lot of users who currently feel that we don't need any more bureaucrats, and thus automatically vote "oppose", then this nomination process will become futile. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI: For a detailed debate about this issue of having "too many" bureaucrats, please see Recently created bureaucrats. CuteLittleDoggieLet's play! 23:45, 15 May 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. Yes; there must be a general consensus in the RfA vote, and votes should be vetted for sockpuppet votes. The criteria seem to be having a majority of the votes after a certain number is reached; what that number is, I'm not sure, but certainly no one who gets 3 yes votes and 1 no vote should be promoted; part of having a consensus is having enough votes to matter.
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. At first, I'd watch how others handle it. It seems to be a rare situation, thankfully; in the case of a close vote, my personal preference is to not promote, or to extend the voting, but again, I'll learn this as I go along, my feeling being, it's better to underpromote than to overpromote. It might be useful to take the comments into consideration, but these can also be overinflammatory. This is honestly a question I'll only be able to answer once the situation comes up, but I'm sure I can conduct myself with fairness. In case people have problems with my decisions, I am always open to discuss them on my talk page.
 * 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. Just recently, I redid the lead of Adolf Hitler in a fashion that people seem to accept - if only because it hasn't been fully reverted within a day, and considering the history of that page, that seems a long time. (I think I just jinxed it) I've helped resolve POV issues in other articles, mostly with success. I think I've shown myself to be fair, well-learned in the policy (giving warnings to people when they vandalize, and instructing them about standards, though honestly I haven't always been entirely diplomatic in these situations, but I'm working on that), and I try to review all policies and policy changes. I am more than willing to discuss any issue on my talk page, as anyone can see.