Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Quadell


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

Quadell

 * Admin note: This RFB has been plagued by bad edits from an AOL IP range, which include unstriking of votes and unsavoury talk page messages. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 06:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The note stating that Quadell was withdrawing from the nomination was made by an AOL IP and probably should be regarded as a hoax unless Quadell says otherwise. -- MicahMN | μ 01:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 final (58/10/8) ending 06:57 5 January 2006 (UTC)

– User:Quadell is a long time contributor, admin/custodian and community mentor/leader on Wikipedia. He is trusted and his advice sought for controversial and difficult discussions. He would be an excellent bureaucrat EdwinHJ | Talk 06:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I accept, and am deeply grateful for the honor of being nominated. I'd love to help out. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (signed belatedly)

Nomination interference?
 * User:HappyCamper informed me on my talk page that someone had visited anonymously with the obvious intent of influencing Quadell's nomination. This person does not want us to know who s/he is. Now I see that we have a sudden flurry of voting activity, three of which are opposes, which could certainly sink an RfB. I do not know whether these or any future voting has anything to do with covert activity and I'm accusing noone. I am not taking a position on this nomination, but we have to have fair play here and you can be certain that whatever Bcrat looks at this nomination when it closes will have some questions to ask and some looking around to do. -- Cecropia 07:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as nominator of course. Quadell is one of our community's finest and would be a great addition/cool head/voice as a bureaucrat. EdwinHJ | Talk 06:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Quadell is one of the finest wikipedians out there; he has proven himself to be exceptional in mediating conflicts, and would make a fantastic bureaucrat. -- MicahMN | μ 05:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Phew! Good answer. I wasn't trying to pressure you, but I've seen it asked before, and can give others a good picture of the user. Good luck, sir! - Mys  e  kurity ( have you seen this? ) 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Duk 05:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. see comment below --Duk 07:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) --Jaranda wat's sup 06:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Quadell is very fair, helpful, and trustworthy.  --Viriditas 07:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Of course. &mdash; 0918BRIAN &bull; 2005-12-29 10:00
 * 4) Strong support. Quadell is extremely helpful, civil, knowledgeable, and a joy to work with. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) TacoDeposit 13:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) King of All the Franks 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Many, many positive experiences with this user, both when I was an anon and under my previous short-lived username. His conduct as an administrator is all but spotless; his almost single-handed maintainance of WP:IFD and WP:IS for many months, including the handling of some very controversial discussions, shows both that he has the time to devote to additional duties and that he has a firm grasp of what consensus really is.  That he doesn't frequently vote in RFAs is a red herring. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Good administrator, will make a good bureaucrat. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support; been impressed with his calmness and reasonableness, and this is absolutely what we need in a bureaucrat. Antandrus (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, good answer. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Impressed at a non-self nom rfb and his plan for the arbcom election, which I don't totally agree with but is at least an attempt to fix that mess, which we need more of. To paraphrase Quadell..."This rfb can be very easy, if we want it to be..." karmafist 04:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support --Terence Ong Talk 04:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) I've seen this user participate quite a bit, but I can't remember where... it will come to me one day :) WhiteNight T 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support AnnH (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 04:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support.  I've "known" him from past projects.  &mdash; Kbh3rd talk  05:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support without reservations. FCYTravis 06:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. --Cobra 07:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support.  Grue   08:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Seems a natural choice Gallaghp 11:37, 31 December 2005 (GMT)
 * 22) Support --Deepak|वार्ता 12:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. El_C 13:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Yes - has my full confidence. Izehar 14:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support --rogerd 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Strong Support. Quadell was perhaps the first Wikipedian I encountered here as a fledgling editor, and perhaps his kind actions convinced me to stay. Extremely helpful and active, I have no qualms with bureacratic powers here. Bratsche talk 16:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support I trust him. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Why not?  ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Reasonable, rational, noncombative. --Ancheta Wis 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. Quaddell's got his head screwed on the right way. I don't see there being any problem wih his being a Bureaucrat. Grutness...wha?  00:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support good luck and have fun! gidonb 03:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support, although Quadell deserves it, I'll throw in a support vote to override the AOL attack campaign. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support ... a nomination whose time is long overdue. Tom e rtalk  09:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support A good user and admin, whom I'm sure will make a good bureaucrat. --G Rutter 15:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support --Terence Ong Talk 17:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Andre (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. - Phaedriel  19:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support. → Fir e  Fox  19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Slim Jim 19:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support (Good to Mild) I see no reason why this candidate shouldn't be promoted and plenty why he should. If anyone wants to question my reasoning they can leave a message for me in talk. --Chazz88 01:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support. A quality editor. Sarge Baldy 03:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. Lupo 12:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support Danny 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support, I rarely endorse bureaucrat candidates as I believe we have enough, but Quadell is too good to pass up. -- M P er el ( talk 08:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support Astrotrain 14:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support good user and editor --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 14:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support. --Kefalonia 15:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support - would make a great bureaucrat. Warofdreams talk 16:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support - ditto all above. This is a clear cut case. -- Jbamb 23:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support - Need more bureaucrats. WikiFanatic 04:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. As good a candidate as any. Ambi 09:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support. The name of the job bureaucrat was selected because the job entails mundane tasks. There is no glory in the job. I welcome more to join the ranks. Kingturtle 21:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Support. I know Quadell from the WikiProject Missing articles and his bounty board, and would certainly trust him to be a judicious bureaucrat.  Chick Bowen 00:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Support. utcursch | talk 04:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose


 * What I don't understand is A) what anyone has something against Quadell, and B) why a vandal would go to such great lengths in a fruitless attempt to block his nomination. Is this a wikipedia filibuster? -- MicahMN | μ 05:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd put it as simple inane trolling. --King of All the Franks 05:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. I haven't seen Quadell participate here (do a CTRL+H search for His name).  Bureaucrats decide whether or not to promote users and unlike most Sysop functions, promotions are not retractable on that level of access.  If He chan ges His mind, then He has ask a Steward. -- Eddie 06:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say, and you should probably clarify your vote. There is no requirement that admins must vote in RFAs, if not we'd have 600 votes on every RFA. This is bordering on bad faith. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 07:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought the above because Beureaucrats decide whether or not users are promoted. -- Eddie 08:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you see Cecropia vote on RFAs? Linuxbeak? There is no such rule, and it's ridiculously bad faith that you're opposing him on that. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 08:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no "rules" when it comes to voting on RfA and RfB. Users use their own standards for their votes, and Eddie's standard is an entirely logical one.  To accuse lack of good faith in this instance is actually very low and completely unfounded.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have my reasons for suspecting bad faith. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 09:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We're listening. Rob Church Talk 13:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jeffrey O. Gustafson. -- Eddie 09:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) My feelings that we do not need more Beureaucrats aside,  Mild Strong Oppose per Eddie. (Also, he hasn't signed his acceptance.)  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "he" being Quadell. Just to clear things up. -- Eddie 08:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to further qualify my vote. Often here on RfA, a voter (Radiant, as an example) will oppose the nomination of a user based on their contributions in areas like WP: and Talk:.  Some will vote oppose if a user has little AfD involvement, even though AfD is not the only place an admin uses their powers.  A bereaucrat has one responsibility and one responsibility only - RfA, and it is logical, if not imparitive, to oppose such a nomination if involvement in RfA is lacking.  Furthermore, we do not need more bureaucrats - bureaucratship is almost entirely ceremonial, and completely useless.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 09:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) * Quadell has been nothing but rude to me. He constantly shoves his Quakeranity into every edit he makes. Please consider revoking his adminship as well! Zollog 04:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) **This seems to be a new user (contributions). A little strange, I've never seen Quadell be rude or exert overt "Quakeranity". -- MicahMN | μ 04:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) ***That users name is STRONGLY suggestive of "Sollog", the infamous troll/sockpuppeteer/etc. 68.39.174.238 06:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) ****Was Quadell involved in that whole Sollog nightmare? -- MicahMN | μ 06:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) *****Regardless, it's a preposterous assumption. --King of All the Franks 06:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose BCrats get two new tools: rename and promote. Unless a candidate is active in RfA, then I can't support. Plus, why do we need more right now? I would only vote support if a super crazy good candidate came up. Voice of  All T 04:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We need more for the RfA backlog. WikiFanatic 04:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, I thought these had to be self-nominations, the fact it isn't shows unfamilarity with the RfA, RfB process which is absolutely necessary for bcrats.--nixie 04:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to where it says RFBs must only be self-noms? NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there is a specifica policy, but the section above spells it out "Candidates might consider initiating a discussion here of the prevailing consensus about the need for additional bureaucrats before nominating themselves.", also I have only ever seen self-noms for bureaucratship.--nixie 04:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The relevant sentence in the section above is, "The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only." B'crat noms by others are unusual, but not improper. Xoloz 19:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Voice of All. I simply don't see the need for more b'crats -- if the power is to be given, it should be given only to those exceptionally well-known and trustworthy. While I respect the editor's logic in accepting candidacy despite not regularly appearing at RfA, I am simply not convinced. Xoloz 05:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a need for bureaucrats, because RfA candidates that passed have had to wait days (at least three in some cases) to get promoted. That's why we need more bureaucrats. WikiFanatic 04:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose -- I come here a lot now and I don't think I've seen a single vote from him. If he wants the power to support admins, he needs to be more active on RFAs. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose -- The entire concept of bureaucrats, like their government brethren, places far too much control over others in the hands of a small elite.  I am against the nomination of anyone to such a dangerous position, and deeply suspicious of anyone who would accept it.  MSTCrow 09:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The title notwithstanding, how would you handle people being assigned technical rights except by designating trusted users who we believe would do the job without abusing it? If bureaucrats were called "trusted comrades" or "humble button pushers" would you accept the legitimacy of the position? -- Cecropia 10:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Nothing against the user, but I've never encountered him on the project, and can't see evidence he's made a contribution (or will in future) to RfA, which the b-crat role centres around. Better served as an admin, and could come back in time for this role. Harro5 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose.  Like others, I have nothing against Quadell in particular, but I don't see any need for more bureaucrats and I see no compelling reason to support. —Cleared as filed. 00:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Eddie, Zollog, et. al. Carl Sagan 00:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This smells a lot like a sockpuppet. New user, three contribs. Also echoed Zollog.
 * (Isn't Carl Sagan dead?) -- MicahMN | μ 01:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing this vote. Cannot be a legitimate vote on a position like admin, no less bureaucrat, with a brand-new account. -- Cecropia 04:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This is nothing personal; it's just that I'm not convinced we need more. enochlau (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * Neutral, pending an answer to question #4, which I have added below. - Mys  e  kurity ( have you seen this? ) 05:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Quadell's a great user and admin, which is why I'm not voting oppose. However, I'd like to see more activity (and therefore interest) in RfAs before I support (in a probable future RfB), since bureaucrat activity is confined to this. --Deathphoenix 15:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I opposed for the same reason. I hope he understands that he can't revoke permissions if this promotion is successful -- Eddie 04:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Only an ArbCom decision can revoke adminship, Eddie. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 04:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And if I'm not mistaken, only stewards can revoke permissions. Ral315 (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, so can developers, although it's almost never done. Ed Poor was a developer at some point, and he did a lot of desysoppings, and Tim Starling has been known to step in when needed, usually for emergency desysopping. Rob Church Talk 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral for now, I'm unfamiliar with this user. I'll think on it. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I have to parrot Radiant here. I haven't seen you participating much in this nomination region either in talk or in voting. I did like your answers to the questions below and may alter my vote.--MONGO 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral for the moment - whereas participation in RFA discussions can't be the only factor that would contribute to my decision, the two basic tools you get to use as a bureaucrat are directly affected by this page so non-participation is a worry. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I do not know this user. -- Compu ter  Joe  11:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral I do not know this user well enough, don't see any reason to oppose, but I don't use "no reason to oppose" as a support for RFB's as easily as RFA's, will look more though. xaosflux  Talk / CVU 20:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Vague memories of the name, and he sounds and appears to be an excellent candidate, but I've never interacted with him all that much. Will think on it. Rob Church Talk 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral, though I'm sure you can be trusted with the powers I haven't seen you around RfA much. the wub "?!"  18:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * Question: Why bureaucrat? Why not simply remain sysop? NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 06:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A. Good question. Before EdwinHJ nominated me, I hadn't ever really considered being a bureaucrat, and was quite content as a custodian. When he nominated me, I thought about it for a few days before accepting, reading about the duties and asking questions. As Eddie points out, I don't often vote on RfAs (although I have nominated a few). But after thinking about it, I decided helping timely promotions would be a good way I could help the community. I still probably won't vote often, since I wouldn't feel comfortable promoting a candidate I'd voted for (or rejecting one I voted against). I usually work best behind the scenes anyway.


 * What is your opinion of the current Semi-protection policy, or of semi-protection in general? - Mys  e  kurity ( have you seen this? ) 05:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A. It's dangerous to give an opinion on a controversial topic during a nomination, because it invites all those who disagree to vote against me. :) Still, since you asked, I think it's a good idea so long as it's used according to the directions - not as a pre-emptive measure, not for edit wars, and only as a last resort. I'm glad it's there to make the vandal-patrollers' jobs easier, although I don't anticipate using the feature myself unless asked.
 * I fail to see how this question is relevant since the enforcement of semi-protection, or protecting pages in general, is the responsibility of the admins. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: I notice that some have been hesitant to support my nomination because I haven't been particularly active on RfA. The way I see it, voting and promoting are pretty separate things, and different types of people are likely to be active at each. Voting is a way of voicing your opinion; promoting is more of a clean-up task. I don't vote all that often, since I am loath to voice opinions unless I've thought them through for at least a couple of days. It seems to me that it's a good thing that I don't vote often - that means I won't feel the need to recuse myself as much. But if you want to know my diligence in clean-up tasks, as I see promotion to be, just look through my contributions. I hope this helps to allay some concerns. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 03:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going out of town for a New Years Party. I won't be back until the 2nd, and I may not be able to check Wikipedia until, but I'll answer any questions anyone has when I get back. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see The Talk Page regarding unusual messages associated with this vote. xaosflux  Talk / CVU 06:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for fun, I went back to find Quadell's RfA way back in July, 2004, and that was an exciting nomination too: . -- MicahMN | μ 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some users are opposing or neutral because they don't know Quadell. So I thought I'd (try) to recall my experiences with him. I first ran into Quadell when he helped start, and assumed a leadership role at, Untagged images in the fall of 2004. The project processed about 40,000 untagged images by Christmass (IIRC). Also, he ran WP:IFD for a long time, which included evaluating community consensus on whether to delete images. This was during some of the infamous autofelletio debates. His work there earned him non-stop user page vandalism for about a year (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). More recently he created the WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot to resolve a copyright issue with using an EB article list. In my experience Quadell doesn't rush to judgment, nor does he bury his head in the sand when a tough decision has to be made. He's an independent thinker who also cares about community consensus, not many people are both. Quadell will make a great bureaucrat.--Duk 23:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose  - I'll support you when you have 43,000 edits. Come back then. 152.163.100.131 19:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is an AOL IP, probably the vandal. -- MicahMN | μ 19:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, who are you to say that I cannot vote? This is AMERICA! 152.163.100.131 19:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to delete this vote, but this was in the anon user's history:  . -- MicahMN | μ 19:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved to comments. Anon can't vote on RfA or RfB and you don't need a bureaucrat to move this kind of thing off the live votes. -- Cecropia 19:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Should this page possibly be semi-protected so as to protect from this vandal? (Again, I'm not trying to bring up/push semi, but it might help stop this guy... - Mys  e  kurity ( have you seen this? ) 06:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I had semiprotected it before, and got a very unhappy reply from a few users... NSL  E  ( T + C + CVU ) 07:09, 3 January 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. Yes I have. An admin should be promoted if there is community consensus to do so. Usually, 80% or more positive votes is a good indicator that the consensus is to promote, but consensus is also determined (to a lesser extent) by other factors as well. These include who is supporting and opposing the candidacy, what reasons are given, how many votes there are in total (possibly; this is the subject of a poll at the moment), and the likelihood that some voters might be sockpuppets. But the bottom line is that community consensus is required.
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. I've found that for contentious nominations, the promoter (or decliner) will be criticised no matter what they do, so the criticism should be an expected part of the job. I don't think I could do better than User:Warofdreams did in dealing with User:Ramallite's promotion. He weighed the situation carefully, discussed it with other bureaucrats, and was willing to change his mind in response to informed opinion. Whether you agree with the outcome or not, it's hard to criticise his methods, and I'll emulate them the best I can.
 * 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 try to be fair in my interactions on Wikipedia, and this often includes waiting 24 hours in inflamatory situations. Wikipedia policy is how this big ship stays afloat, and I stay up-to-date on it as best I can. To see how I engage others in the community, feel free to browse through my talk page and the archives - my history is an open book, like all of us here!
 * 4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on IRC or 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. No, I don't make promises without thinking them through very carefully, and I'm not sure why I'd want to make that pledge.
 * A. After some thought, and discussion with Cecropia, I've decided to go ahead and make the commitment: if I become a bureaucrat, I will not discuss any specific pending cases with anyone through private channels. So yes. I've moved the discussion about my previous answer to the talk page.


 * 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. This is the main reason I've chosen to accept this new responsibility.


 * 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.