Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Grandmasterka


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

Grandmasterka
Final (10/7/0) ended 02:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept my self-nomination. Well, in trying to please everyone, it seems I have pleased hardly anyone. I said the system works fine, but then I propose all sorts of changes to it. Sigh... I withdraw. Grand master  ka  02:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am Grandmasterka, and I have been an admin since July 14th of last year, and an active participant in RfA since somewhere around my 300th edit. I believe I have been, for the most part, a good citizen, contributor and admin for Wikipedia. I have made some painfully embarrassing mistakes I can name that all occurred within the first two months of my adminship, but I believe I now have the maturity and experience necessary for this position.

There has, off and on, been discussion about a possible desire for a new bureaucrat; in a recent thread on RfA talk, User:Redux expressed the sentiment that, while the need for bureaucrats is not urgent, any qualified and willing candidate should run, and User:Essjay agreed that "'we don't need any' shouldn't be a valid reason for opposition". (Both users are bureaucrats themselves.) In light of this, and in the spirit expressed through the five recently failed requests for bureaucratship (excluding the one who mainly wanted to do bot flagging,) as well as several other threads on RfA talk expressing a desire for more bureaucrats or bemoaning the lack of support given to new bureaucrat candidates, and mainly due to my belief that I can bring a fresh and beneficial new philosophy to the bureaucrat staff on hand (see below,) I urge you to carefully consider my RfB even if I might not meet your time of service requirements for a bureaucrat.


 * As bureaucrat, I pledge:
 * To respect community consensus, and to weigh the will of the community against the potential good of the community (although they are the same about 95+ percent of the time)
 * To explain any remotely controversial decisions in great detail when asked, and, on occasion, even if no-one asked :-)
 * To attempt to foster a greater understanding and evolution of the RfA process through my above explanations
 * To do my best to stick it to Citizendium and prove that I can be the best damn bureaucrat I can be, even though I apparently don't even meet their basic requirements for adminship (25 years old and a Bachelor's Degree? Puh-lease.)


 * Views on RfA:

The bulk of this comment shows my main views on our current RfA process. I have never been much of an RfA reformist, although I had supported suggestions that would introduce more constructive discussion into the process. Then, after reading all the archives, I found Discussions for adminship, which was discussed to death and failed, as well as a mountain of other reform proposals that all died a very hard death. It's either quite humorous, or quite sad. The point is, adminship is, and always must be, a subjective process, and therefore subject to the whims of the members of a growing and changing community which leaves older contributors feeling more apprehensive about the current process, in my observation. There will never be a User:Bureaucrat Bot for automatic adminship, like some people seem to want, although that will only be because it forgot to accept its nomination. Defining what is and isn't an ideal admin seems simple on the surface, but the various failed reform proposals taking up many megabytes of space on RfA talk in all the archives (again, yes, I've read every single one of them) and on policy pages shows that it is a very complicated issue, with a solution similar to how one would define pornography. (And, incidentally, adminship is A Big Deal™.) Thus, I believe our current system works okay, because it generates enough admins to do the job, though we could always use more (although "enough" is highly subjective as well) and because the number of de-sysopping incidents and problems we have is very low for the number of admins we have (also subjective.) I'm quite proud of our admin force as a whole.


 * How I will make decisions as bureaucrat, and bridging the gap between RfA traditionalists and reformists:

However, I will listen to all serious reform proposals and weigh in on them if asked. More importantly, I am running in this RfB on a platform of strict adherence to almost exclusively giving full weight to arguments that reflect criteria in the current revision of Guide to requests for adminship and Guide to requests for adminship, with the following changes:


 * Little or no weight will be given to High quality of articles. While I understand the spirit behind 1FA, it is a frequently abused criterion in my opinion, and has outlived any usefulness it might have had. I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I believe a large percentage of our current admins have not significantly contributed to a featured article. I simply don't see it as a useful criterion for adminship by much of any stretch, and adminship is not [supposed to be] a trophy.
 * Equal weight will be given to copyright or fair use concerns, which are not currently mentioned in GRFA. Even RfA reformists and inclusionists can agree that this is a valid point of opposition.


 * (Subject to small changes.)

When it comes to RfA, the burden of proof should fall more on the opposition to prove that the candidate should not be an admin in any given candidacy, than on the supporters to prove that the candidate should be an admin, because the opposition is automatically given more weight in RfA. For this reason, oppose !votes will be much more heavily scrutinized for the guidelines I've laid out above. By applying my own strict guidelines and taking a more active role with the community, I believe I can help influence the culture of RfA to reduce the "frivolous" oppose !votes and/or editcountitis that RfA reformists often complain about, and partially acheive a more informed RfA populous that will make everyone happier. (I think "partially" is all we can ever hope for.) Note that I would only be an umpire of this process as bureaucrat; I would just happen to have a smaller strike zone than the other umpires. (Pardon the bad sports analogy.)


 * Relevant admin experience:

I have some experience closing AfDs which are the closest thing an admin can do to deciding consensus in an RfA, in my opinion. Please have a look at THIS. This is the sort of in-depth analysis you can expect from me as bureaucrat given a similarly controversial decision. (I only wish I had known that one of the "keep" opinions was the sockpuppet of a banned user, although it probably would not have affected the outcome.) You can find a brief rundown of my take on past controversial RfA decisions in my answer to Q1.


 * In conclusion:

Please note that I fully intend to continue in all the roles I fulfill now, as an admin who checks WP:ANI and CSD regularly, and a user who fixes articles a lot and writes articles a little. Whether or not I become bureaucrat, I have a new year's resolution to become more involved in article namespace again, here and/or in another language. I do not believe that being a bureaucrat should hinder these things that much. I reserve the right to nominate users and participate directly in RfAs, and I will not close these no matter how lopsided the result is. In addition to RfA, I would of course lend a hand at Changing username, but I won't do any bot flagging, at least at first. Wikipedia has literally played a big role in teaching me a new language, I don't see why I couldn't eventually learn all about bots as well. :-)

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?
 * Easy answer: Anything above 80% support pretty much gets an automatic pass barring sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/other funny business, 75% to 80% support would be up to my discretion whether it passes or not. Bureaucrats are promoted at 85-90%+. (I've seen 90% traditionally used, but WP:GRFA currently says 85%.)
 * Real answer: I want to make one thing clear up front: I don't simply go by the numbers. I really do weigh the arguments in AfDs, and I have made several decisions against the prevailing numbers. The numbers are more important in RfA when actual people are being decided on, but I will not make decisions based just on the numbers. I will make decisions on the guidelines I have laid out above. Here's a brief explanation of how I would have decided a few example RfAs (all these assume I had not taken place in the discussion:)
 * Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3: I would not have found it in me to promote this candidate even after discounting opposition based on OrphanBot or legitimate image work, or a proxy vote for a banned user. (That's just shameful, by the way.) I think if bureaucrats and ArbCom wanted him sysopped that badly, they should have publicly laid out the ground rules for the RfA from the start. I don't blame them that much, though; I think they legitimately might not have seen this coming. This RfA was a terrible mess that confused the role of bureaucrat afterwards. Hopefully I can set it straight. :-)
 * Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2: I would consider a lower percentage for promotion of former admins who gave up the bit on apparently good terms, with a gray area between 65-75%, because admins are likely to make many enemies in the course of legitimate admin work. This one falls right in the middle of the gray area and would have been a very tough decision. (It's a tough decision right now!) I suppose if I was forced to make a decision here I wouldn't have promoted based on a few of the arguments in the "oppose" section, and the principle "when in doubt, don't promote". Honestly, I probably would have left it to someone else. To their credit, Carnildo and Sean Black seem to be doing well though... At least, I haven't heard any complaints about them since their RfAs. And for the record, my opinion in this RfA would have been "neutral" if I had it to do over again, today, with the same information given.
 * Requests for adminship/Rory096 2: This one would be closed as a close no consensus, closer than you would think. Most of the opposition was based on a single diff, and what clinches my discounting of much of the opposition is that the so-called "victim" agreed to the prank, and declared as much, on-wiki, on the RfA. Therefore, applying the guidelines set out in my nomination, most of the opposition would be rendered invalid and the RfA would be closed as a near-miss. A single edit to the userpage of a consenting party should not invalidate adminship. However, I would need to investigate the claims made by the rest of the opposition and adjust accordingly; I'm disappointed that the opposition didn't provide diffs of his apparent canvassing against someone else's RfA, some of which apparently took place on-wiki. (Much of the opposition not based on the "bitch" diff would count against "trustworthiness" in my GRFA-based guidelines.) I don't think I would have been comfortable promoting him, although I would have thought about it. :-) I'm providing this as an example of how my guidelines might significantly affect the numbers in an RfA, and possibly swing the outcome; I can't think of example where a user would have passed instead of failing by a wide margin. It's possible there's one out there, although this would be very rare instance. In any case, my guidelines are sure to affect many borderline cases.
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. With a calm head and a good explanation. If I already promoted someone I can't exactly take it back, but I'll have thought about things for a good time beforehand if the closure could be even close to controversial. If you saw the kind of "consensus-building" I have to deal with in real life, you'd know that anything Wikipedia throws at me is all fun and games compared to that. :-/
 * 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 believe my record and my nomination statement should speak for themselves. You're in good hands.
 * 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. Absolutely. I am a big believer in transparency, something that is sometimes forgotten, even by bureaucrats. And besides, I never visit the forum on which the shadowy cabal makes its decisions. ;-)
 * 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. I will not be consistently available on weekends, at least for a while. (Until I get a broadband-enabled phone or satellite internet for our travel vehicle or something.) Otherwise, the answer is a definite yes. I will of course pop in on weekends whenever I can. One plus to me is that I'm frequently awake when it's the middle of the night in the U.S., so I can close nominations that are due for closure when much of the largely U.S.-based bureaucrat corps is asleep. I already check in to RfA all the time and have it on my watchlist, I just need to pay more attention to the closing times...
 * 6. Have you ever nominated anyone to become an administrator? If so, who and why did you choose them, and if not why not? --Majorly 11:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A. Only once, a very long time ago: Requests for adminship/Getcrunk. I liked what I saw from his contributions and I nominated him. It looks like all the opposition was based on his username and userpage. Such opinions have to be taken seriously and it was rightfully closed as no consensus, but at the time I didn't think the userpage was that bad, and as for the username, Wikipedia isn't censored.
 * 7. Above, you write: As bureaucrat, I pledge: [...] To do my best to stick it to Citizendium and prove that I can be the best damn bureaucrat I can be, even though I apparently don't even meet their basic requirements for adminship... While I think I know what you mean by your remark about sticking it to Citizendium, I'm not sure; I'd be grateful if you could spell it out. -- Hoary 11:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A. Well, I tried to inject a little humor into my nomination, and it looks like it has backfired. I apologize. I was surprised to see that citizendium has age as a hard requirement for adminship, when that very issue has been discussed a lot recently on RfA talk. I count myself among those who think an admins' actions should solely speak for themselves, and it seems to see that that project is turning down a useful force with the age thing and requiring a degree in order to block people. But it was a dumb thing to say.

Comments
 * Anyone else considering an RfB, there's a new template Template:RfB to use. This one seems to be using the old template. --Majorly 11:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) The candidate has a very deep and thorough understanding of Wikipedia and has been active in broad reaches of the project. We appear to need some more bureaucrats, therefore I will support this candidate. One little quibble in your statement ("At least, I haven't heard any complaints about them since their RfAs") where you missed something regarding Sean, but I do not expect bureaucrat candidates to be 100% omnipotent. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, clearly knowledgable of policy and procedure, clearly dedicated, clearly bright, will make a good bureaucrat. Clearly. Proto ::  ►  14:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. This candidate clearly expresses an interest and understanding of the duties of bureaucrats. He's knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy, and has enough experience with the project, as an editor and as an admin.  Nish kid 64  14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, I especially appreciate the detailed posts on reasoning of the three Rfa's listed - which show clearly the deep and thorough understanding of Wikipedia as stated by Sjakkalle. "Running the numbers" is insufficient; I support a b'crat who does the due diligence and thinks, as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Based on the information and responses above, I believe that Grandmasterka will make a fine bureaucrat. He's demonstrated a great knowledge of the letter and spirit of the policies and guidelines here. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support we need Bureaucrats who are willing to look at the reasoning in an RfA and promote despite silly opposition. I've seen way too many awesome candidates rejected on personal grudges and other bad reasoning. Patstuarttalk 18:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support for thoughtfulness. And the occasional irreverent comment is perfectly fine with me. -- Hoary 23:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per above. Yuser31415 23:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support A good admin and will probbly be a good 'crat per answers above. Cbrown1023 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support User has put a great deal of effort into this, and the answers to questions are fine. Another bureaucrat won't hurt anyone, but please don't burn out like most of our current bureaucrats. --Majorly 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - how dare you, misleading and derogatory. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean by that, with a few diffs, if possible? SuperMachine 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Equal weight will be given to copyright or fair use concerns, which are not currently mentioned in GRFA. Even RfA reformists and inclusionists can agree that this is a valid point of opposition." <- ehem? I wouldn't trust a 'crat who failed RfAs on the stance that they support fair use. Secondly I don't have RfB ammunition written on my head thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Misleading and derogatory"? Methinks you need to come up with a good explanation for your incivility. I see nothing misleading nor derogatory. Poorly-worded oppose, perhaps? – Chacor 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By my interpretation he is saying he can fail an RfA because a user is pro-fair use, and then he quotes my RfA as an example of an RfA where supporting fair use is valid opposition. I definitly would not trust him with the ability to make anybody a sysop, no way, I'd worry to much about misuse of power. PS: If you wish to call my valid opposition uncivil then you are welcome to. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment has been struck by myself. Personal attacks are not tolerated here. Yuser31415 23:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a personal attack. Please don't strike valid votes. --Majorly 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicted) It may be a bitter and incivil oppose, but that is not grounds to strike out votes in RfB's.  Nish kid 64  23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per your answer to #1 regarding Rory096 and the idea that you can throw away a majority of oppose votes because you don't agree with the reasoning. Sorry, with an attitude like that you are pretty much giving yourself power to do anything. -- Renesis (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Renesis above. I am very well aware of how silly oppose votes can be. However, there is no good reason to believe that many support votes are better informed.  Discounting oppose votes just because you think they are not well substantiated is a bad idea, and would lead (judging again from your comment about Rory096's RfA) to people being promoted with something like 60% support or so. It is my very firm belief that  it would be an extremely bad idea to promote people who are believed by a very large minority (regardless of reasons) to not be fit for adminship at this time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Comment in the nomination regarding Citizendium struck me as lacking maturity.  Although I like the editor generally, that isn't the sort of remark I'd want a b'crat to let slip in course of his duties.  Xoloz 18:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS! Of all the stupid trivial reasons.--Docg 23:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I'd imagine Grandmasterka will be able to hold in such remarks in the course of his duties. And even if on occasion he can't, the sky won't fall. -- Hoary 00:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) There's no explicit thing I can quote, but the general impression of your statements is that you intend to make RfA less voting by discounting some opposition reasons you don't like, apparently including "votecountitis". I complain about RfA being too votey, yes, but have you noticed that fixing it by discounting certain things doesn't work? -Amarkov blahedits 00:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Oleg Alexandrov. I think we cannot discount good faith votes from users in good standing (and I guess I know how silly the oppose votes can be even better than Oleg). Alex Bakharev 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Alex. It is not appropriate to dismiss established users' expressed opinions, even if they seem invalid.  In close cases, b'crats should perhaps weigh the strength of views--e.g., in a borderline case, if most of the opposes are self-identified as "weak"--but that is a different matter.  To begin discounting views on arbitrary grounds is destined to create dissension.   Buck  ets  ofg  01:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 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.