Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mailer diablo

< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Badbilltucker (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 8 October 2006 (strong support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mailer Diablo

Voice your opinion. (4/0/1) Ending 16:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Mailer diablo (talk · contribs) I've been on board with Wikipedia for almost two years now, and I thought it is time for me to volunteer taking up the demanding responsibility of bureaucratship in further serving the community. Since the first time I edited back in November 2004, the encyclopedia has offered a lot of knowledge and inspiration for me, and I thought this is my way to give back to the community.

I was handed the mop and bucket in March 2005, and have worked in several aspects of Wikipedia's processes along with other editors. Perhaps I may be most notorious for closing deletion debates and slogging it out at Articles for Deletion and similiar processes (the other not-so-"notoriety" being 1FA), probably considered to be one of the "dirtiest" aspects where and some editors see it as "broken", "cesspool", an environment not many sysops like to work on. My contributions speak for itself; I have lost count on how many debates I have closed, including some controversial and notorious cases, and I believe I have done a decent job in this area and have shown to be able to guage consensus in making decisions.

The latest expansion of the speedy deletion policy has freed up the workload on Articles for Deletions by a third. I believe that I am able to take up this further janitorial work in addition to what I'm doing now, and have demonstrated the ability to with my current experience. I put forth myself at the mercy of the community to determine if this is indeed the case.

As an additional measure, in any situation where I may have deemed to have failed the community, I will be avaliable for voluntary recall. - Mailer Diablo 15:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a self-nomination; no acceptance is required.

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. Consensus, consensus, and consensus. Usually promotion will take place where there is a support of 80% or more in a RfA. Between that and 75% is a grey area that may require a second bureaucrat's opinon, which does not usually pass. Anything less will never be promoted. Since the granting of sysop powers is significant, the almost impossibility to revert, and its decisions have far-reaching implications, I would put in summary that "when in doubt, do not promote" (just as in AfD, when in doubt, do not delete).
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. My principle as per the previous question. There is no easy solution for every contraversy, and I understand there is no adminship review here. Two examples I can think of right now is to extend the discussion and give it more time, and in rare cases where the RfA progress is seen as unfair to be restarted. IIRC ex-crat Francs2000 has used both methods before. Any contentious decisions will be explained in full to address any concerns.
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. My experience as a janitor. (See 2nd pargaraph of my statement) I've doused many fires that rage across the deletion processes, including but not limited to Brian Peppers, Monicasdude, Userbox Wars, School Wars, CVU just to name a few. I still believe strongly in civil discussion and debate, helping editors and to assume good faith (per my March 2005 RfA). I think my experience is best illustrated by my contributions.
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. Definitely. Transparency is of the upmost importance. No backdoor decisions, no shady deals. Guranteed for your lifetime, otherwise just ask for a full bureaucratship refund.
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. Definitely. That is the precise reason I am applying for the responsbility of bureaucratship.
6. (Expected FAQ) I do not agree with One Featured Article, it's ridiculous! Why do you advocate that, and with that I don't think you'd be fit to judge RfAs!
A. There was a time where there was a serious shortage of quality on articles (and still is today), and when the edit counter was working there was a chronic concern of Editcountitis. I first saw Jguk, an established editor using this, it impressed upon me and I thought it may be a good idea to try and popularise it. Eventually, it didn't work out among the community, but I am glad with the amount of debate it has generated among editors. You can have my word and be rest assured that I would not use it as a basis for judging RfAs, and support or opposition based on it would have the same merit as any other opinons on RfAs.
7. (Question from User:Batmanand). You state that "when in doubt, do not promote", and that "Anything less [than 75% support in an RFA] will never be promoted". What are your thoughts on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 (including, if you wish, the behaviour of various sysops afterwards, which have now culminated in an ongoing ArbCom case)? Would you have promoted? Batmanand | Talk 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. (Question from Flcelloguy) What are your views on the current TawkerbotTorA RfA? How would you handle the situation? If the RfA ended today, would you promote or not promote? (Pretend that you haven't !voted or expressed any opinions on this matter before, and were asked to be the deciding bureaucrat for the nomination.)

Comments & Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • The following question should look quite familiar... "Bureaucratship is a highly respected and regarded servants of the community, and its members are expected to defend this tradition and honour. (Hypothetical) Say, in an unlikely event that you have made an error in your RfA judgement in the course of your bureaucratship. Would you prefer to resign and take personal responsbility, or would you rather to have the bureaucratship and yourself bear the consquences together?" Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer reading through WT:RFA and thinking over rather than posting directly, but if you accept associated discussions I've also explored various de-adminship proposals, followed the recent Carnildo RfA (on RfAr now), 1FA essays, and accustomed through the "adminship is not a vote" debate - which hit home as early as the transition of VfD to AfD (Deletion reform, "AfD is not a vote"). - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, good admin with lots of expriences in AFD and RFA. Will make a good 'crat with his experience. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, has my trust. — FireFox (~) 15:36, 08 October 2006
  3. Support, definitely. Energetic, fair, cool-headed. -- Hoary 15:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support An outstanding admin with lots of experience in RfAs and AfDs. The added tools given to this candidate would benefit this project greatly. A friendly user whom one can relate to as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mail-in Support ~ trialsanderrors 16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support - In all the times I have ever encountered the nominee (and there have been a lot of them - I've done a lot of deletion proposals lately) I have been impressed by the amount of input he has as well as with the rationality and fairness of his actions. I cannot help but think that he would be more than qualified for these further duties he seems to be willing to voluntarily take on. Badbilltucker 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose


Neutral

  1. I am, at this time, unsure. A while ago you cited your upcoming (how soon? Less than a year?) National Service, as well as A-Levels, as basis for at first leaving, then later shortened into a Wikibreak. How will these commitments off-wiki affect your potential work as a crat, if any? – Chacor 15:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed to figure out a balance for my studies and editing at this time. For National Service, I may or may not have an access to a computer, but whenever I can log on though at home I'll get to work.
    Just as any editor would love to work round the clock on Wikipedia, real life unfortauntely may impose restrictions on one's ability to get online and edit, and sometimes this is not by one's free will (you should know, that National Service is by law and complusory). However, this should not restrict one's love for dedication to the encyclopedia and its community. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Mailer_diablo&oldid=80233400"