Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Grunt

Grunt

 * final (31/11/3) ends 23:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Judging by the (personally perceived?) average delay of several hours between when a successful admin nomination ends and when the user attains sysop status, there's still a shortage of bureaucrats around. Seeing as I'm around when a lot of these nominations end or have ended, I could be use of a bureaucrat... -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:25, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

If you are considering ending this request (whether in favour of or against my becoming a bureaucrat), I urge you to hold off until Cecropia, JCarriker, and perhaps other individuals have had time to consider my response to Cecropia's controversial question about anti-American bias. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:30, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Anyone whose userpage has been vandalized 109 times and moved three more times&mdash;anyone who has been impersonated four times&mdash;they have proven themselves without a single doubt. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:27, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's 111 times now, thank you! :p -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:36, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * 1) What Neutrality said. --Slowking Man 23:27, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure deal! GeneralPatton 23:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) What they said ^ Nadavspi 23:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely. Unfortunately, I have had little interaction with Grunt, but in those few moments I was greatly impressed.  Good luck, Grunt!   &bull;  &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  04:24, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * 5) David Gerard 15:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) &#8475; yan!  |  Talk  15:44, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Strongly. Opponents are trolls.  RickK 21:31, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) ** Rick - do you do it deliberately, or is it kind of a nervous tick? ;) Mark Richards 19:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Wow... I think Grunt overly deserves this... Good job... squash 21:41, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Absolutely. He has done such a good job preventing vandalism. Strongly support. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 22:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) By all means. &ETH;&aring;&ntilde;&eta;&yuml;&szlig;&ocirc;&yacute; | Talk 22:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) A. D. Hair 23:59, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) 172 13:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Without a doubt. --Conti|&#9993; 21:47, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) I'm inclined to agree, in principle, with RickK (gasp) and Neutrality (not gasp) in this matter. Also, Grunt's been extremely kind with my annoying nature on IRC (along with using Linux!), and such. 109 vandalisms? That's more than George W. Bush! ugen64 22:45, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to say that it's 111 vandalisms now? :p -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:43, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
 * 1) Emphatically support.  – Andre ( talk )  14:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed! Mike H 06:28, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:57, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, Grunt seems always to be here. zoney &#09827; talk 17:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) &#x00b6; &#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57; | [[User talk:nichalp| &#x2709; ]] 20:10, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Ambi 15:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I grunt my vote for Grunt! GRUNT! - Lucky 6.9 01:04, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Emsworth 01:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) J OHN C OLLISON | (Ludraman) 10:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Always, Grunt. Always. JFW | T@lk  15:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) I find the notion of opposing someone because they may be "anti-American" to be absurd and offensive. Personal opinions of that nature should not be a criterion - conduct on Wikipedia should. Snowspinner 18:33, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * May be anti-American? He has that assertion up front on his userpage, where Wikipedians (especially new ones) would go to find out about the attitudes of someone who has a position of trust. He has failed to comment on this after more than three days. So he declares himself as disliking a large segment of Wikipedians, and you're offended that I find this inappropriate. Of course, it has been suggested that this is a joke. Perhaps Grunt will share the joke with me so I can laugh, too. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It seems to me a disaster to limit positions of trust in Wikipedia to pre-selected POVs. Snowspinner 19:30, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * A disaster? You see no difference in someone having a POV, and someone expressing a dislike for a large number of the members of the Wikipedia community? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. Because that seems to me to also preclude people who really don't like racists. Or people who are racists. And I think that administrative positions in Wikipedia need to be filled with a plethora of viewpoints. Snowspinner 20:02, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * The first is a rather inappropriate comparison. There is a difference between someone who doesn't like a group of people (racists) for positions they take as opposed to exprssing disdain for a group who live in a particular country (the United States) and express that distaste in their profile. Second, a believe an open racist would have quite a bit of difficulty becoming an admin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't vote in favor of this candidate, but I strongly believe knowledge of one's own biases is a good thing, and stating them is important (then, it might be an issue how to word such statements, but that's a secondary issue). That improves the standard of Wikipedia! /Tuomas 04:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Graham &#9786; | Talk 21:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Danny 23:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) More grunt work for Grunt. SWAdair | Talk  10:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -- Gregg 11:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Endorsed a factually wrong RFC summary. Gzornenplatz 02:43, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Where? Snowspinner 18:33, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I assume this refers to the RFC about him. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:31, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
 * 1) Netoholic @ 16:40, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC) -- I don't see the value-add. Admin promotion does not seem delayed, and, sorry, but Grunt hasn't offered any good reason why it should be him as opposed to anyone else. I also find it very dubious that he posted this within minutes of his Sam Spade opposition vote, and I think there may be an agenda here.
 * This is because I tend to do things here on RFA in bursts. I came here to add myself to the list and saw that Sam had been recently added to the list of candidates, and decided to put my vote up before nominating myself here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:36, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * I think the first part of my comment was the more important one in my mind - what reasons can you give that you yourself deserve position of bureaucrat? You have only been an admin for a little over one month. How has that given you the experience necessary for this position? -- Netoholic @ 01:07, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
 * As I've stated above, I wish to become a bureaucrat because I percieve a lengthy delay between when some candidates' nominatons expire and when they are actually appointed an administrator. I believe that I am experienced in making decisions to which there is a generally positive reaction - and if I make a decision in which this is not the case I am also adept at dealing with issues that would arise as a result in a calm, collected, civil, and above all considerate manner. I have never been involved in a heated dispute with another user and I view this as evidence to the above. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:19, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
 * I wish to become a bureaucrat because I percieve a lengthy delay between when some candidates' nominatons expire and when they are actually appointed an administrator. So, what's a "lengthy delay"? -- Cecropia | Talk 03:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Reverted a well thought out, reasoned and worded page without reason. His neutrality is in question now. User:Michael Krewson Oct. 6,2004 - See History under "Jehovah".
 * This action was supported by consensus mainly on the basis that it is a copyvio. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:59, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
 * User also has less than 50 edits, a majority of which relate to this same copyvio. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:38, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your actions in that case helped me in my decision to vote to oppose your request. The core problem wasn't copyvio or consensus: it was a word with at least two distinct meanings. Jamesday 01:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I believe that there are sufficient bureaucrats.  If there is indeed a shortage, I can think of more suitable candidates.  uc 20:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I have nothing against Grunt and have seen nothing but good work out of him. But bureaucrats do have considerable power, and most of them have been around Wikipedia&mdash;and been admins&mdash;for a very long time. I think that if we need more bureaucrats (and I'm not even sure we do need more bureaucrats), we should be promoting some of our most experienced Wikipedians instead.   &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   22:43, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) On your user page, you characterize yourself as "a notable [...] anti-American ('only against typical Americans')." What do you mean by that? How would you define a "typical American" who you are against? What is an example of an "atypical American" you are not against? Why should a neutral person (American or not) not take this as a sign of bigotry, ignorance, or immaturity? -- Cecropia | Talk 22:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I have moved my query up to "Oppose" after 40 hours of non-response from Grunt. Anti-Americanism is one of those soft bigotries that is fashionable in some quarters, and like other bigotries, is destructive to both the bigot and the target. I grew up in the era when black people in the US south could not eat at a lunch counter with white people and Jewish people were to supposed to know that they would not "fit in" at "restricted" hotels. I don't think Grunt is in any way a bad person, but I wonder whether his world is so constrained that he doesn't appreciate that bigotries have consequences, and his casual expression of a popular one disturbs me. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This vote is a good example of the utter stupidity that society is diving into headfirst. We're becoming so HYPERsensitive that people can't even joke about ANYTHING without offending someone.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  18:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Is it a joke? I posted the original comment two days ago and no comment from Grunt. Anti-Americanism is very fashionable among many, and I do not find it funny. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:06, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have to say that, while I don't think Grunt is very anti-American, I sure would not want to be up for adminship if I was someone who he considers a "typical American". In a close decision, that admitted prejudice might have impact. -- Netoholic @ 22:29, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
 * 1) Acegikmo1 06:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC). After some deliberation, I have decided to oppose.  I think that Cecropia's response to Grunt in the comments section is an adequate summary of my position.
 * 2) Tuomas 10:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) If the delay had been weeks, it had been reason to be bothered.
 * 3) Belatedly joining the discussion. Due to the controversy and irregularities, I oppose making Grunt a bureaucrat based on this particular request. I might well support if he comes back in a few weeks. We should all try to have cooler heads about this next time around, and we might find that the concerns about community experience are also mitigated by then. --Michael Snow 00:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose because of the reason given for seeking this: unwillingness to accept a few hours delay seems like a poor rationale when judging consensus is necessary and it may take more time to be reached. Jamesday 00:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Concur with Michael S. +sj +  08:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) "Cannot see any real positive community involvement". Dubious vote. {&Alpha;&nu;&#940;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu;} 15:52, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *Agenda-pushing revealed above has me worried. {&Alpha;&nu;&#940;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu;} 16:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) **Agenda pushing hasn't been "revealed" its been hypothesised. And quite frankly it doesn't hold water to my mind. Exactly what agenda has been revealed. You think grunt will try to stop Sam spade from gaining adminship? He can't. Sam's voting period will end before Grunt's and even if it didn't there's nothing a bureacrat can do about the result of the poll anyway. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 20:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, would you like to explain why you feel it's a dubious vote? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:42, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * Of course. I quite honestly question your judgement here: your adherance to the strict 75% support, despite Jimbo Wales statement 'adminship should be no big deal' does not exactly inspire trust in you to support bureaucratship. Also, the voting pattern against Samspade is rather strange. It's nothing personal. {&Alpha;&nu;&#940;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu;} 08:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Very Verily  04:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) I agree with comments that he is too new, but not strongly enough to oppose. I don't think the anti-American comment should be weighted so heavily, however. His characterization of the "typical American" does sound ignorant and ill-formed to me, but having a wrong opinion should not be a disqualification. The question is, is there reason to think this "bigotry" (if that's what it is) is going to affect his judgement or impartiality? My limited experience with Grunt gives me no reason to think it will, anymore than (say) a user's religious or anti-religious views, however stupid they may seem to others, would. Neutral.
 * 2) As a life long Southerner I don't consider prejudice to be fodder for jokes, thus I agree with Cecropia's comments above. Soft-bigotries are often the most persistent and dangerous form of bigotry. ZI am disappointed and disturbed by Grunt's unwillingness to address Cecropia's concerns. I have been concerned about his lack of tenure at wikipedia, but was leaning toward support for his number of contributions and quality of work. However, until Grunt adequately states that the comments are a joke, I have no other recourse but to oppose remain neutral. -JCarriker 15:13, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Response to Jay: You struck out I am disappointed and disturbed by Grunt's unwillingness to address Cecropia's concerns in changing your vote to neutral. For the record, Grunt said nothing about my concerns until after the original voting period had passed, despite the fact I gave him three days to do so. When he finally did respond, he completely ignored everything I said as to why his expression on his user page (which is still there) is inappropriate for someone putting himself forth to the community. I must not have been the only one dissatisfied with his response, because he garnered five additional negatives after he posted it, and then accepted the promotion of Ugen64 (who at least had the decency to debureaucrat himself) who promoted him outside of policy after the issue was discussed by the two of them and others on IRC. He failed to take any responsibility for his bigotry by noting: I would like to express my displeasure of voting against this bureaucrat request on the sole basis that I have expressed a personal displeasure with anything on my userpage. To me, it's like saying "You can't do this because you don't like the colour pink", which is absurd. He equates an expression of disdain (at least) for those he styles "typical Americans" with not liking a colour? Is this the maturity he would display if he promotes someone and he has to explain how he came to the decision? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I understand that to you and I it does not seem that your concerns were addressed it may not seem that way to Grunt and I have posted a follow up. Grunt has responded to your query, even if it was not satisfactory and respond was what I meant by the statement I stuckout at the time I wrote it. I consider my move to be in good faith to encourage him to respond as depsite the current time I hope he will still respond to my questions, my position in any future nomination depends on it. If my queries are not answered or I do not get the response I hope for I will again oppose. -JCarriker 01:39, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Right, and it's okay to be anti-French, just because Jacques Chirac voted against the war on Iraq? It's the same thing... let's rename American football to freedom football... ugen64 21:56, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I could make assumptions about you Ugen64, or I could point out that we share many interests and aspirations, or rebut your post with a set phrase such as Liberté! Egalité! Fraternité!, or satirize your view of me with jokes about marrying my sister or eating possum. However, I will not. I will give you the basic courtesies of wikilove, wikiquette, and basic human dignity that you did not extend to me. -JCarriker 01:25, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Now what is the cause of that ad hominem non sequitar? I don't see anything on JCarriker's user page bashing Chirac and characterizing himself as "a prominent Francophobe (but only against 'typical' French)." Would you be inclined to vote for him for bureaucrat if he did? On reflection I think I am more bothered by the "typical American" comment because it suggests that he knows what a "typical American" is like and finds himself superior. That is the heart of racism. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Just a quibble - anti-Americanism isn't racism because "American" is not a race, rather a nationality.  – Andre ( talk )  04:13, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Granted. But my own quibble is that I didn't say "anti-Americanism" was racism, but that the attitude expressed underlies the heart of racism. Functionally, setting any group of people apart en masse based on what you think you they are like and using that to justify a negative opinion of them isn't necessarily racism, but it walks, waddles and quacks like it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I was planning on taking on both sides objectively, but that last sentence was just a bit too Enoch Powell for my tastes. Mike H 02:01, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC) (I don't even think I'm making sense, so just disregard that.)

Comments
 * Umm ... seems to me that the waiting time for promotion has been pretty small lately. If you guys want it done faster, you could consider giving me a raise. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * OK you salary will double from midnight tonight. Now quit whining and get on with your work! ;-) Theresa Knott  (The torn steak) 20:49, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's just a percieved delay. Feel free to correct me if there isn't one. Of course, since I tend to work at least twice as fast as everyone else, even a few minutes would be percieved by me as a substantial delay :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:05, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that "anything below 75% support is grounds for removal" since sockpuppet votes need to be taken into account and "we do have systems with which to keep them in check" is either a joke or somewhat naive. Grunt, could you perhaps explain these points? Angela. 17:18, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I find it self-evident that sockpuppet votes should not be counted, which is why I did not explicitly state so. As for the abusive sysop issue, I percieve thus: we do have systems to deal with abuse on/of Wikipedia (e.g. the ArbCom, MC, RFC, and other dispute resolutions). In circumstances that require this we can apply these systems to sysop actions - so we do have ways of dealing with the hypothetical abusive sysop... they just have yet to be shown to work well. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:41, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * While I admire Grunt's enthusiasm, I would like to point out that he has been contributing here for fewer than six months and has been an admin for about six weeks. While there are no established tenure requirements for bureaucrats, most of the others have been here for several years.  I believe that prospective bureaucrats should have the ability to participate in a few highly contentious votes before attempting to adjudicate them.  uc 21:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Cecropia has been so kind as to check the "delay" in granting admin promotions granted in the last two months and posted the results at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. The evidence shows that almost all are done within hours (and quite a few  are done before time expires) – the longest "delay" was 14 hours one case.  -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)


 * The question has been raised as to just what I mean with my anti-American sentiment on my user page. The basic fact is that I am strongly opposed to the current American administration and its policies and actions, and view a "typical American" to be one that blindly supports that administration (otherwise they would not legitimately be in power). It seems to me that most Americans with the skill and knowledge to edit Wikipedia do not fall into this category in that they are at least informed enough to understand why they support the current policy (if they happen to support it).
 * I'm also going to point out that I've said on my userpage that I do not let biases like these get in the way of my Wikipedia contributions, and that those people who have worked with me tend to know this fact. To this end, I would like to express my displeasure of voting against this bureaucrat request on the sole basis that I have expressed a personal displeasure with anything on my userpage. To me, it's like saying "You can't do this because you don't like the colour pink", which is absurd.
 * I hope this clears up the burning questions that have been posed here; I apologise for the delay in doing so, which was used to fully consider this response before posting it here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:26, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, Grunt, you just don't get it. I didn't oppose your adminship--I posted my question under neutral and only moved it to oppose when you didn't respond for two days, to see if I could get a response, and still you didn't respond. I shared with you my actual experience with bigotry, and the substance of your response reminds me of what I heard years and years ago: "Oh, the Johnsons, they're really nice people, not like those other colored." Excuse me, I will not "Tom" for you that Americans on Wikipedia are "good" Americans, not like those ignorant yahoos. Remember my use of the term "soft bigotry"? A century ago the great majority of Southerners would not harm a hair on another person's head, but the feeling that others were inferior and a sense of grievance formed the foundation for the fellows with the freshly washed hoods and the ropes; the Holocaust didn't just happen; ordinary Europeans (and not just Germans) never accepted Jews and Gypsies and often others as members of the countries of their birth. And part of the foundation of 9/11 was the feeling that it was horrible, terrible, despicable, but just maybe Americans deserved it a little, because they're such terrible people.


 * As I said, I don't think you are a bad person in any way, but you don't have the maturity to deal with a diverse Wikipedia community. I will neither promote you (you're still short of 80%) nor will I remove your nomination. There are 17 other bureaucrats who can take that initiative by their own judgment. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I faceted questions I'd like you to answer.


 * 1. The message on your user page and the use of the phrase typical American still concern me. As an avid student and observer of politics I can assure you that regardless of who the politician is; be it Mr. Bush, Mr. Chirac, Mr. Putin, Mr. Mbeki, Mr. Lula, Ms. Arroyo, or even Canada's own Mr. Paul Martin; the majority of the votes they gain will be at the hands of people who blindly follow them. Why is this trait unique to typical Americans, and if you so strongly oppose the Bush Administration why is an informed person who supports Mr. Bush less deserving of your displeasure?


 * 2. Cecropia is also trying to point out that a prejudice is still wrong no matter who it is directed against. If you truly believe what you wrote, and I am inclined to believe you do, then you are not Anti-American. Anti-Americanism is not legitimate criticism of the U.S.; it is prejudice against it. To say the U.S. has an arrogant foreign policy is not Anti-American to say it is a cultural dust-bin as I have seen said in a major French Newspaper is. This is similar to Anti-French sentiment in that saying French foreign policy is arrogant to say the French are cowards is Anti-French sentiment. Both Anti-American and Anti-French sentiment are soft-bigotries and a social acceptable even encouraged in some circles, today. Please re-evaluate your claim to being Anti-American, are you truly Anti-American or just an opponent of much of the Bush administration's policies?


 * I urge you to present the more nuanced view offered here on your user page. I will make my decision to change my vote on this issue after I have reviewed your response to Cecropia and my posts. -JCarriker 02:55, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that Grunt's personal views don't matter. He's a strong user and a strong sysop with a history of handling well in conflicts and being NPOV. I happen to be a New Yorker (albeit a Democrat), and his view against Americans affects me not at all regarding his Wikipedia position. But, he could be an anti-Semitic (I'm Jewish) or an anti-people-with-names-beginning-with-A (as mine does) and I would still support him for bureaucracy (bureaucratship?) because I like his handling on the Wikipedia. Similarly, if I were anti-Canadian or anti-people-with-names-beginning-with-G, I would still support him. This is an issue where a separation must be made - church and state, or more general, the separation of POV and Wikigovernment (someone think of a catchier name), if you will. If one disagrees with him about deletion/inclusion or adminship requirements, that's one thing, but disagreeing about real world POV is another entirely. – Andre ( talk ) 14:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * While the separation of POV and Wikigovernment is admirable it is not a realistic goal, even on wikipedia. I'm trying to see if Grunt will treat people differently based on there political views and place of origin. Second, personal views do matter if they may have an effect on how the user interacts with other users. What's wrong with asking tough questons?He is answering the questions, if he is able to assuage my concern I will withdraw my oppostion. Third, I do not believe that trivializing concerns about Grunt to comparisons about anti-people-with-names-beginning-with-A is helpful to getting him a successful vote. P.S. I would oppose any nominated user who claimed to be anti-Semitic, anti-French, anti-American or anti-blank any, national, racial, ethinic, or religous group. -JCarriker 20:47, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * An objective look at Recently created bureaucrats doesn't support the notion of any "80% rule" applying to bureaucrats, as it typically would for adminship. There seems to be a much higher threshold (more like +90%) of consensus needed for this level of responsibility. I would say that there are enough concerns that this request should be archived. -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying on that one point, but can I ask you to also discuss your reasoning behind the "delay" you perceive with admin promotions, and why, if true, you are the best person to be appointed to bureaucrat? Also like to know why you waited until after the official end time (specificallly by 3 minutes)? -- Netoholic @ 00:47, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

Bureaucratic Questions Q1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A1. I take "general consensus" to be at least 75-80% support (between support and oppose votes) or more for the person becoming an administrator; the 80% would apply if there are significant, legitimate concerns with the user's conduct as an administrator and 75% otherwise.

Q2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A2. ''In such situations I believe I'd be inclined to use my personal judgement. I'd feel that anything below 75% support is grounds for removal with a "consensus not reached"; let them be renominated later if there's real merit in their becoming a sysop. On the other hand, anything above 80-85% is usually a consensus to promote, and if things do not turn out well we do have systems with which to keep them in check. If I do get criticised for these sorts of decisions, I will probably attempt a discussion in a civil manner - but if there's as much controversy surrounding them as with the past borderline cases, things will probably already be clear to myself and to the people involved.''

--Grunt 🇪🇺 00:04, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)