Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jtkiefer 5


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

Jtkiefer
Withdrawn  Jtkiefer T   03:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my actions during this RFB. I was overtly hostile and harsh and took your comments personally when I should not have.  I feel bad for my actions and due to this and other reasons that I do not wish to disclose publicly I will be giving up my adminship as I feel I know longer deserve it.  Jtkiefer T   03:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Final  (7/26/8) ended 04:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

– Jtkiefer - I have have been an Wikipedia editor and have contributed in every aspect of Wikipedia life from editing articles to vandal fighting, from voting in RFA's to debating the most controversial policy ideas. I think I would make a good bureaucrat since I have always shown myself to be civil and fair towards other editors and I am sure I would do a good job closing RFA's per the consensus of people who decided to participate in giving their input as to whether a candidate should get the "mop and bucket" (aka becoming an admin). Jtkiefer T  01:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

For people who are concerned about the number of bureaucrats please see my answer to NSLE's question below. Jtkiefer T  02:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Moral support. You can't fault him for trying. J I P  | Talk 12:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't but that hasn't stopped anyone else from trying. Jtkiefer T   03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Moral support; I like this user, and I agree with JIP. Perhaps we don't need more bureaucrats, but then again, there've been mutterings about changing the role to include more or less. Rob Church 13:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support. We need more bureaucrats in Wikipedia! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong moral support changed from neutral. NSL E (T+C) at 05:05 UTC (2006-03-23)
 * 4) Support per JIP, RobChurch. - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 08:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support As I've done at least 3x now, for the same reasons. -- негідний  лють  ( Reply  05:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Moral support --Doc ask?  23:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --605330 21:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose Hate to be a first oppose, but your last RFB failed probably because you didn't wait long enough between attempts for RFB. I see it as a minus that you keep nominating yourself to be bureaucrat rather than being patient and waiting for someone to nominate you. I like to support a bureaucrat with many, many edits and is a seasoned admin. I think you should wait a while before attempting again. (this vote in no way reflects what I think of you as an admin). M o e   ε  02:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I waited over a month which is the accepted time before nominating yourself for a position and I would not have done so if I did not feel that I had changed enough to A) be a better candidate, and B) Thought that people could get past the number of noms and look at my answers to the questions and vote based on my merits which is also a reason why I haven't mentioned my edit count in any of my bureaucratship noms and except for possibly my first RFA nom. Jtkiefer T   02:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It has only been 38 days since you last nominated yourself. I'm talking about a while you should wait, not a few days over a month. M o e   ε  02:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Things like this cannot just be a measure of time, if it were just about time then someone with 100 edits could get adminship as long as they'd been around long enough. It's about ability, about attitude, and about dedication all of which I think I have the right amounts of to do the job.  Jtkiefer T   02:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Moe, you have called Jtkiefer on the fact that he self-nommed. As you may or may not remember, by convention, 'crat noms are always self noms, if I am not mistaken it is a requirement of the process. So you should not call him or any other 'crat candidate on that, I don't think. I opposed the last 2 or three of these (I've lost count, actually) but see no need to pile on this time. + +Lar: t/c 02:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot about that. :-) Thanks for reminding me Lar but maybe he shouldn't try so often then. M o e   ε  21:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose - per my consistent rationale. Great editor, but there is no need for more bureaucrats.  Period.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 02:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)  Further objections per Titoxd.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 02:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I say this with all due respect but would you ever consider revisiting your rationale since you have maintained that reasoning for some time and situations do change. Jtkiefer T   02:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would consider revisiting my rationale when the situation does change. But a cursory glance at RfA shows that it has not.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 02:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I respect that you have your standard and you are willing to change it if the situation changes even though I disagree with your basis for that standard I still have the utmost respect for that. Jtkiefer T   02:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. While I appreciate your work here, you have been asking for bureaucratship literally every other month (and the timing has been very particular too) and that has been interpreted as being too eager. RfA candidates are opposed for too many nominations in sequence, and RfB candidates, who already have to face higher scrutiny, are no different. Please have more patience and wait a while. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see my reasoning in my answers to the questions especially to NSLE's question as to why I feel that this is different than my previous nominations. Jtkiefer T   02:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem that was mentioned in all of them, to be frank, was impatience. In order to address that, you have to wait, it's as simple as that. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 04:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have waited but if it isn't time that people oppose for I'd bet $100 dollars they'd find something else to oppose me on, most likely the number of noms I've had. Jtkiefer T   20:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. While I have nothing against Jtkiefer, it appears to me that he wants the job too much (this seems to be the 5th attempt at bureaucratship, and the last attempt was a bit more than a month ago). Taking into account that bureaucrats don't do much, and that there are plenty of ways in which one can make a difference on Wikipedia with bureaucratship not needed for any of them, such persistence strikes me as odd, and a bit unwise; which are I think good reasons for him not getting the job. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see my reasoning in my answers to the questions especially to NSLE's question as to why I feel that this is different than my previous nominations. Jtkiefer T   02:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had read your answers to NSLE questions before I voted. That you feel you must reply to each and all votes opposing you is also one more reason to vote oppose. Admittedly this is a minor detail, but bureaucrats should be above that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't "need to" but I like to be as clear as possible to why people are opposing my nomination and the fact that you think that doesn't make me fit to be a bureaucrat is your loss not mine. Jtkiefer T   03:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Sadly oppose - nothing personal, but I think he needs more experience. --Ixfd64 09:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for all the reasons listed above. enochlau (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The editor's repeated, hasty nominations have made me highly skeptical of his desire of b'cratship. I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would support this candidate prior to 2007. Xoloz 13:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Any reason 2007, why not the year 2048? Jtkiefer T   20:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, friend, I want to give another chance; keep up that sarcasm, though, and you'll push me right to 2048, as you apparently wish to do. Xoloz 12:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll make sure I re-nom before then just to show you that I don't give into blackmail by voters who probably didn't even read the questions before voting. Jtkiefer T   03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: please stop trolling. Thumbelina 13:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you look up the definition of trolling before you acuse other people of it and also follow WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Jtkiefer T   19:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Mike H. That's hot 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you explain a little bit more so I know exactly why you opposed and what I can do to improve? Jtkiefer T   20:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above --Masssiveego 21:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly Oppose. A few months ago Jtkiefer was responsible for banning a longtime Wikipedian and known excellent contributor for a very minor image dispute (JDG -- who I sometimes worked with before joining Wikipedia myself). JDG was oversensitive about it and left for good. Jtkiefer should have looked into JDG's long history with the project, given a proper weight to the guy's contributions (which included primary authorship of several FA), and de-escalated the situation. He did the exact opposite (when JDG expressed his surprise/disbelief, Jtkiefer upped a 24-hour ban to an indefinite ban in a pure stroke of malevolence), showing a very poor feel for the longterm good of Wikipedia. This kind of alienation of strong contributors by relatively green admins (JDG had been with W something like 10 times longer than JTk) seems to be happening more and more often, and when energetic writers like that leave the project it's like losing 200 capable casual editors in one blow. Far from considering bureaucratship, Jtkiefer's basic admin status should be reviewed. Jim Tour 22:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an extremely probably sockpuppet (only 36 total edits) of any number of vandals and trolls I have blocked in my time here so if you want to badmouth me fine I can take it but at least have the guts to do it with your real account and not some sockpuppet. Jtkiefer T   22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I should probably just say "need I say more?". Do we want a Bureaucrat who jumps to flatout wrong assumptions, without even understanding how easy it is to verify how wrong he is? I guess there's no way to prove I'm not a sockpuppet, but anybody can get to JDG's talk and from there look at his long history going back to early `02. You are calling him a vandal or troll? The volume and quality of his edits are many magnitudes greater than your own. He had never faced any sort of disciplinary action, nor even the whiff of one, until you trundled in with an indefinite ban over a miniscule debate about the copyright status of an image. He wasn't even entangled in a dispute with other editors. It's plain to anybody looking into it that a responsible Admin would have at least issued a warning before risking alienating such a user, who was pretty much as far as one can get from being a troll or vandal... Sorry for going on at such length. I happen to know him personally (he's the one who suggested I create a username here). He's in very poor health and helping out with Wikipedia used to brighten his days quite a bit. To be frank I'm just outraged that an individual like JTKiefer even has the authority to do what he did to an individual like JDG. I expect any others reading this to strip the emotion out of it and register the simple fact: JtKiefer chased out someone who was among the first couple dozen people to get Wikipedia off the ground, and he did so as an act of ego. He's one of the last people who should be asking for bureaucratship. Jim Tour 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because he was a long time editor did not excuse him from the following the rules just like everyone else and didn't mean he deserved special treatment despite what you or anyone else thinks. I wasn't the one who made him flip out and leave and it is extremely unfair for you to say that. The fact that he blatantly refused to follow policy was why he was blocked and had he stated that he would be willing to follow the rules he would have been immediately unblocked but since following our rules on copyright is not optional he was blocked.  Jtkiefer T   23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a total misrepresentation of what happened, and I believe you know it. You're hoping that potential voters here won't bother to review the case for themselves. If this nom had any chance of succeeding I would collect a bunch of links showing just how unfair you were to JDG, but since it's plainly doomed I'll spare myself the effort. Jay-- if you're reading this, why don't you just forget about the insult from this guy and come back? Something tells me he'll be long gone frm the project soon anyway and it would be a shame to let one action of one out-of-control guy keep you away from the articles that need you (esp. Origin of Life :) ) Jim Tour 23:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have a ref for a place to start reading about this? + +Lar: t/c 03:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like JDG's user page was deleted, maybe at his own request (he was really upset by the whole thing-- he told me he'd prefer all trace of his time here be wiped out). But his talk history appears to be intact. Here's the link to the talk page section regarding Jtkiefer's block of JDG: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JDG&oldid=38283610#blocked ... Don't get me wrong-- JDG could be stubborn. I remember following some tussles he had with other editors when Shroud of Turin was being whipped into shape (I contributed a bit on that one anonymously). But he never let it get out of hand, never came close to even an RfC, and some of the resulting articles really are among the best in this entire project... He was having an especially rough time in February with his cancer treatments and it was just unfortunate that someone like Jtk crossed his path right then. From what I could piece together about the image dispute, he probably was headed for trouble on that one. But Jtk never even addressed JDG's contention the image was fair use and immediately whipped out his power to ban. Very obviously, a longtime quality contributor shouldn't be clobbered with a ban at the outset of a dispute of this type. Jtk should have proposed informal mediation, especially as he has no particular knowledge of copyright law. Another objector to this nom used the perfect word: intemperate. Jim Tour 05:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't need editors on Wikipedia who blatantly refuse to follow our rules especially if not following those rules leaves us liable to get sued for violating people's copyrights. Jtkiefer T   03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose. From simply looking above your comment Any reason 2007, why not the year 2048? seemed extremely incivil, and wasn't the type of behaviour I'd like to see from an admin - nevermind a bureaucrat. Computerjoe 's talk 22:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The way I see it is that saying that isn't any more incivil then saying there is no way I'd vote for this guy until 2007 without giving any reason. Jtkiefer T   22:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So the appropriate response to incivility is more incivility? --Durin 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides which, I gave a reason: this candidate's large number of hasty nominations. Criticism is not uncivil of itself. Xoloz 12:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but it's a good way to point out the hypocrisy that I get criticized for incivility and he gets praise. Jtkiefer T   03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: I've seen too many intemperate outbursts. Jonathunder 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, the admin claims to have matured, however I find it immature that only a month has gone by between the 4th and 5th requests for this position. Please, do not make this request again for several months. The editor who said 2007 is justified in making that statement. --ZsinjTalk 23:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you qualify waiting the defined normal period betwene noms immature? Jtkiefer T   03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose' - needs to wait longer between noms.--Fil e  Éireann 02:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I have a 1 year lenght of service requirement for 'crat candidates. — xaosflux  Talk  04:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, that would be June I guess then. Jtkiefer T   03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Not only is Bcrat status not the next logical step from admin as I have said before- we should only approve Bcrats when a new one is needed -but this user has shown a distinct lack of maturity in dealing with others as shown above. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose- I read the talk page that showed how he censored and blocked JDG without warning and I don't think he should be an administrator.
 * At least have the guts to sign your post if your gonna say bad things about me. Jtkiefer T   03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, for reasons which I cannot make public for reasons of personal honor. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, as I do not see the need for additional 'crats. I hope that you do also understand that bureaucratship is not a trophy. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never seen it as a trophy and I regret that you see my attempts at bureaucratship that way. Jtkiefer T   03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Sanity concerns [] []. — Mar. 24, '06 [14:35] 
 * I assure you I am quite sane and I'll thank you not to make personal attacks. Jtkiefer T   03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, not now. --Ter e nce Ong 16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose "Any reason 2007, why not the year 2048? JtkieferT | C | @ 20:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)"  Initally, I had not opinion in this RfB.  However, after reading this comment, I feel compelled to oppose.  If a user cannot accept criticism and respect someone's opinion, then is this someone who should have privileges in an organization such as Wikipedia? -- Psy guy Talk 16:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for all the reasons above, plus the argumentative replies. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose After reviewing the case regarding this user and JDG I have to put this bluntly, You have got to be kidding me. This user needs less power not more. I find his shoot first warn after approach to established editors to be revolting, and indefing blocking a user because he disagreed with the block disgusting. Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 05:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He was not blocked for disagreeing with the block, nobody is ever indef. blocked for disagreeing with a block. He was blocked for blatantly refusing to follow copyright rules.  Jtkiefer T   03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I'm troubled by what I read above about a long time contributor and Jtk's heavy hand. While I think Wikipedia has to be very firm on Copyright-- there are areas where things aren't always crystal clear and dialogue is warranted. Nephron  T|C 08:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See above, when an editor refuses to follow copyrights then that is pretty crystal clear. Jtkiefer T   03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * New question below, neutral until answered. NSL E (T+C) at 02:02 UTC (2006-03-22)
 * Answered. Jtkiefer T   03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Hmmm...my first look at this was on my watchlist diff..."adding my nom". Aside from the initial OMG, I am not sure if all of these candidaces show too much focus in having 2 certain powers that are not in high need (look at the copyvio and checkuser backlog, that is something that could use work) or if this a positive thing, in the sense of determation and commitment to getting and maintaining the position. I'll just stay neutral and see how the wind blows. Voice -of-  All T 02:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Although none of Jtkiefer's edits necessarily bother me, there's something about making him a bureaucrat that does bother me. I'm trying to figure out what it is that bothers me, but I haven't been able to. It doesn't bother me that he nominates himself frequently. - Richardcavell 03:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if you do figure it out please tell me since I am always willing to hear how I can improve. Jtkiefer T   03:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Great editor and admin, and I don't have any particular reason to oppose, but a bcrat doesn't have the same function as an admin. Nor am I entirely thrilled with his responses to the Oppose votes above. --Alan Au 05:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, would probably have promoted me, teh anti-userb0xx3n anti-policy guy. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 06:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Tell you what, I'll make you a deal, (against my better judgement). If you fail, or withdraw this nom, and then wait 4 months before nominating yourself again, (and you haven't been banned by ArbComm or something else disqualifying in the meantime, not that I expect it, you're a good guy if a bit impatient) I PROMISE to support you then. On the other hand, (after this nomination goes down, as I predict it will), if you nominate yourself before those 4 months are up, I promise I'll oppose you, each and every time. Because impatience just isn't the virtue a bureacrat needs. (think about it... when have you ever interacted with an impatient bureacrat? they evoke the mental picture of glacial calm and slowness, after all) For now, for this one time: neutral + +Lar: t/c 06:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to negotiate just to get votes, especially since RFB/RFA doesn't work that way to begin with and I'm not gonna wait your timelimit just to get you to support me. Jtkiefer T   23:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Up above you say "I am always willing to hear how I can improve". But I'm not sure you mean it because, the way I count noses, there is a pretty large majority here telling you to stop asking so often, to be patient, to wait a while. In fact it would seem some of the established 'crats see this nom as comic relief... how are you going to work with people that don't take you seriously? You say I'm negotiating. Nonsense. I am not negotiating, I am giving you advice, regardless of how the wording is couched. Stop renominating for a while. How long? Well, 4 months, 6 months, until 2007, all of those have been floated in various comments! How can it be made plainer? Either take the advice we're giving you or realise you'll get opposed over and over again. That's aside from the fact that you're arguing the points with many of the people commenting. It just leaves a sour taste. Change your approach on both those things, or I suspect I won't be the only person reflexivly 'voting' oppose every time. Oh, and another thing, didn't you say you were quitting not too long ago? That's something that will cause people to 'vote' agaist you too, I suspect. You need to internalise what people are telling you better.  + +Lar: t/c 03:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I won't oppose, for the same reasons I supported last time I noticed you up for RfB.  However, five nominations?  There's got to be a time when one says "dude, you want it too much". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, No doubt, he is a good editor and admin, but still may need more experience as all the bureaucracy work is going smoothly. I am not going to oppose for to be a bureaucrat to him too. Shyam  ( T / C ) 13:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * Oh, goody. Comic relief. -- Cecropia 03:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify that in a way that doesn't make it a personal attack? + +Lar: t/c 06:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not an attack on the nominee; it is a comment on Mr. Kiefer's timing. Just when words are flying back and forth on another bcrat candidacy, this pops up right on schedule like Old Faithful, to get the expected flurry of opposes. I am reminded of Norman Thomas and Harold Stassen. -- Cecropia 06:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the thread you're referring to, thanks, and yes I agree, a little levity isn't misplaced, thanks for clearing that up. I think you forgot William Jennings Bryant though... + +Lar: t/c 13:10, 22 March 2006 (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. I understand the the criteria to be a "rough" consensus to promote which does not have an absolutely solid number but is normally percieved to be somewhere between 75-80% support but can and will vary in each individual case.
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. I would use my best judgement when looking over the situation and I would always be able to explain my reasoning whether the nomination was controversial or not.
 * 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 feel that I meet those standards since I have been a longtime editor and reader of Wikipedia and I know policy as well as always keeping up on what's going on at the Village Pump and on the Administrator's Noticeboard so I keep a constant feel of the vibe of the community. I also follow all the policy discussions on the Wikien-L mailing list as well as the Foundation-L mailing list and the Wikipedia-L mailing list.
 * 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. Of course, however I will of course always be willing to justify my reasoning as to why I did something on RFA talk or on an editor's talk page afterwards since a candidate or editors in general have a right to know what the thought process is for the promotion or non promotion of an RFA candidate.
 * 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. Yes, I have both the time and the desite, I am always very active on reading RFA and I vote in any nomination where I feel qualified to give an opinion one way or another.

Question from NSLE:
 * This is your 5th bcrat nom. What has changed from your last four? What arguments do you make for the opposers in your previous nominations to change their minds? And do you agree with the assertion that there are enough bureaucrats? NSL E (T+C) at 02:02 UTC (2006-03-22)
 * A. I think I have matured a bit more, I have more edits and time under my belt and although I recently took a short break from editing I still continued to follow all the AN pages, VP, and the mailing list (I still get 300+ messages a day from it) I also think that in my statement and in my answers to the above questions I have dealt with many of the concerns that people have brought up and think that I would now be able to put forth the time and energy needed to do the job effectively and well.


 * I don't know exactly how to answer the claim that we don't need more bureaucrats because nobody ever believes the answers that I give to the question not to mention the other nominations who get shot down due to it but I think we do indeed more bureaucrats as this is a growing project and we have a growing reader base, editor base, and administrator base and as the user base grows we need more people available to rename users and as the administrator candidacies grow we need more people who can close requests for adminship. If anyone has any more specific questions on any of this please do not hesitate to post them below and I will answer them since I definitely like it when people take the time to ask questions of the candidate.  Jtkiefer T   02:12, 22 March 2006 (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.