Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jc37: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Taxman (talk | contribs)
14,708 edits
neutral
Line 97: Line 97:
#
#


<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfB starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfB has been transcluded. -->


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====
#'''Neutral''' - Clearly trustworthy user but too much focus on the intricacies of policies. Policies are helpful to some extent, but harmful as well. As they are ever expanding they take a toll on users and direct efforts away from article editing with the time they take to argue over and discuss. Like all non article building activities, the time spent on them should be minimized while gaining as much of their positive effects as possible. You'll do fine, but please keep that in mind. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 17:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
#
#

<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfB starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfB has been transcluded. -->

Revision as of 17:14, 18 May 2012

Jc37

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (19/0/1); Scheduled to end 08:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Hi all. I'm submitting this RfB to the community because I'd like to help. It's what I like to do here at Wikipedia. I don't have any FAs (or rather: I haven't successfully sent any articles through the FA process AFAIK), but that's not really been my focus. I tend to enjoy more, creating stubs, or helping a stub on its way, or even more, organising an existing page so that its flow is better, and it's clearer and easier to read. (Incidentally, I dislike that this is supposed to be one big block of text : ) - I suppose I like the editor-ing part of editing. I enjoy cleaning up articles, and in particular, lists and categories. I suppose that all of these might be pretty much considered mostly thankless tasks, but we each contribute to Wikipedia in our own way : ) - As for non-content/article-space, I've been present for/contributed to many policy/process discussions over the years, helping write/re-write many policy/guideline/essay pages. I also like to help out new (and not-so-new) editors. In the past, I've also been a "go-to person" to look over proposed policy/guidelines, particular edits, 3PO etc. I was entrusted with the tools and responsibilities of adminship in 2006. I tend to be most active at CfD, but as I like to help out, I float all over. For example, the other day I noticed that there was a backlog at RfPP, so I cleared most of the page. As you may notice if you look over my contribs, I have had some "gaps" in editing in the past due to various real life issues/concerns (at one point my ancient computer gave up the ghost in the machine : ) - Anyway, to all who take the time to "look me over", thanks for your time : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: C'est moi : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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've read a LOT of RfA discussions. And I've seen a fair number of contentious closures. RfA (like most of the processes which grant an individual user-rights and related responsibilities) is pretty much a hybrid between voting and consensus. So with that in mind, while there really is no "magic" number, anything better than 3/4 (75%) is "usually" a successful candidacy, with the region roughly between 2/3 and 3/4 being within discretion. That said, in preparing for this nom, I read over quite a few past successful RfBs, and find that each seems to have their own personal preference on the specifics of the numbers. I seem to remember being in some RfC discussion long (long long) past where many sitting bureaucrats were polled on this, and there was a general agreement on where the "fuzzy middle" of the numbers should lie, but it all pretty much resolved as: it depends on the stuation, we'd rather trust the bureaucrats to be conscientious in their discretion than to affix arbitrary benchmarks in policy - which is part of why there is currently still no mandated numeric amount. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A: Depends on the situation. "Contentious" covers a lot of ground. In some cases, a 3PO might be a good idea, in others, it may not be necessary. As for "criticised", an RfA often brings together those who disagree, and so there are those who will disagree with (criticise) a closure. Such is life on Wikipedia. The response to that is I believe the same as expected of any closer. Be ready to explain any close. Don't close if you're unsure of the accuracy/appropriateness of the closure. And so on. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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: Because I do? lol. But more seriously, I'm a firm believer in the Consensus model, and in Wikiquette. (See the top of my talk page for some links/examples.) Incidentally, I considered linking the various policy/process pages which related to my statements in my nomination and these questions, but as I did, I realised I could link nearly everything. And since I felt/feel that most commenting here would hopefully be at least somewhat well-versed in such pages, I decided to spare everyone the wall-o-blue : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Leaky caldron

4. Can you explain why (a) you think that the setting on an edit count limit on WP:RFA would be beneficial, (b) your rationale for imposing such an automated limit and (c) in what circumstances you would pass an RFA candidate with 400 edits? See [1]
A: - Well, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that there should be a "set" limit. But I can see the benefits being similar to NOTNOW. Though, thinking about it, I think setting such a limit might be less seemingly confrontational to a newbie than telling them after-the-fact "not now" - being proactive, rather than reactive. As for why 400, I explained in that link why I picked that number. Though, to be sure, numeric edit counting is quite open to gaming, and might need to be locked down some way, like saying that userspace and talk space edits, as well as (semi-)automated edits shouldn't count towards that number. I suppose the idea/intent is to try to come up with a way to assign a benchmark for "minimum experience". And I think even if we set one, IAR, as always should be potentially applicable under certain case-by-case bases. The short answer I suppose is: I'm not convinced one way or other, but I'd be interested in what the rest of the community thinks. If you'd like, I would be happy to discuss this with you and see where you and I may agree and disagree : ) - jc37 09:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from TheSpecialUser
5. What according to you are the minimum requirements for an editor to pass an RfA and under which circumstances or how much % consensus (minimum) will you promote an editor?
A: As a closer? AFAIK, according to policy, other than being a registered Wikipedian (having an account), there are currently no minimum requirements for an editor to pass an RfA. That said, as I noted above (under question 1), we traditionally have rough numeric benchmarks we look toward as a guide. I think I explained this in question 1. However, if there is something you would like me to clarify, I would be happy to do so. (I feel like I'm missing something in your question.) - jc37 10:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing much but, for e.g., there are 2 editors (a and b). A gets 76% S% votes in their rfa while B gets 73% S% votes, so who will be promoted by you, (both? only A? only B? none?) and why? →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 10:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would depend on the substantive discussion in the RfA. Sorry, I don't mean to say (again) "it depends", but it kinda does. But ok, for the sake of whatever, let's pretend that all supports and all opposes are merely "support" and "oppose", then, by the numbers alone, I think I would probably promote both. (Though in that very unlikely case, I would still probably do some due diligence and check their contribs myself, in part to see whether I would feel comfortable being the closer.) Does that better answer? (I know, I've always been terrible with answering hypotheticals : ) - jc37 10:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was perfect. →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Scottywong
6. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate to:
6a. ...add the bot, account creator, or reviewer user group to an account.
A:
6b. ...remove the administrator, bot, account creator, IP block exemption, or reviewer user group from an account.
A:
6c. ...rename user accounts.
A:
7. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on RfA/RfB discussions than other consensus discussions?
A:
8. Why do you wish to be a bureaucrat?
A:
Additional question from Juliancolton
9. You have one edit left before your internet connection dies forever, and you can use it for one of three things: to fix a typo in the lead of an article, to block an IP vandal (your edit is notifying them on their talk page), or giving somebody a barnstar or equivalent praise. Which would you choose?
A: Well if I really only get one edit (and knew that in advance), I'd probably give another (presumably active) admin the "barnstar or equivalent praise" and in the same edit let them know about the typo and IP vandal : ) - jc37 16:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, that's the best you got? ;) Bureaucrats don't always have the luxury of being able to kill three birds with one stone. I guess to put it another way: which category of contribution out of those three do you consider the most important? Juliancolton (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • Note: For the sake of transparency, there are roughly a half dozen Wikipedians who I have discussed adminship and/or bureaucratship with in the past. I intend to drop each of them a friendly notice linking to this page. If anyone wishes to oppose due to this, they are of course welcome to. But I think it's merely the polite thing to do. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dropped a note with the three who co-nommed me for adminship, and 3 bureaucrats with whom I've discussed such things in the recent (and distant) past. - jc37 09:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion


Support
  1. Support I see that Jc37 is prepared to take difficult decisions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - A good amount of experience as an admin and has good edits. Though I see that their level of activity reduced between few months and has resumed since only 4 months, this user is trustworthy so support (no reason for me to oppose). →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 09:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Trustworthy candidate, successful administrator. Wrote some nice responses to the questions above. Cheers, C(u)w(t)C(c) 09:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as user seems to be helpful, considerate, friendly, and I feel can be trusted with the extra tools/responsibilities. Good luck! Warning - I was super close to opposing over this typo ;) GiantSnowman 10:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, does good work at CfD, should do equally good work at RfA. - filelakeshoe 10:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support good amount of experience.....good edits as an admin.. StrikeEagle ✈ 10:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support – I have been encountering jc37 for some years now, mainly at cfd, where jc37 is consistently exemplary. Oculi (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I know very little about what bureaucrats do, but I do understand adminship, and jc37 is masterful at that. Jc is thoughtful, friendly, humble, and willing to do the difficult and sometimes unpleasant things. That sounds like what you need as a bureaucrat.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I really don't see any reason not to.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - no issues come up while searching through the user's Admin Actions. We need more Crats, and we need to start here. Achowat (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Has consistently demonstrated good sense and willingness to do heavy lifting (in its many forms). --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - acceptably boring and drama free. Competent. No concerns. QU TalkQu 13:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - As in strongest possible. Jc37 has proven to be an excellent admin with trustworthy judgment. I have no doubts at all that he will be an excellent bureaucrat as well. --Kbdank71 14:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support He will manage those extra buttons quite easily. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Discussion in question 5 inspires confidence that the candidate understands the role of a crat. Monty845 15:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Decent participation in RFA, along with a low non-controversial profile. Secret account 15:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Will go good with the wrenches and screwdrivers.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 15:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Experienced and trustworthy. The candidate is quite helpful and knows how and when to consult others. Majoreditor (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral
  1. Neutral - Clearly trustworthy user but too much focus on the intricacies of policies. Policies are helpful to some extent, but harmful as well. As they are ever expanding they take a toll on users and direct efforts away from article editing with the time they take to argue over and discuss. Like all non article building activities, the time spent on them should be minimized while gaining as much of their positive effects as possible. You'll do fine, but please keep that in mind. - Taxman Talk 17:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Jc37&oldid=493220116"