Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rudget

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Rudget

Final (5/4/3); Ended 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rudget (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - This must be the first time since October that I have done such a thing as self-nominate. Promoted to administrator in January of this year, I have only a short tenure (only 14 weeks) as one and I suspect that this RfB will fail because of that, but I'm willing to see what might happen. :)

The reason I'm putting myself up for bureaucratship is not for the userbox on my page, not for the listing on WP:CRAT, but for a position of responsibility, to work with even more people and to help out at CHU and RFA. I know bureaucrat candidacies generally fail because of the 'no need' for bureaucrats arguments and a few others, plus some additional comments with respect to a user's history and standing on Wikipedia, and I expect that to crop up in this particular case, since I'm sure there are more experienced administrators out there (just not willing to put themselves forward). I'll now go on to summarise my experience in 'crat related areas:

  • Out of all the places I could potentially assist further, RFA is probably the one that I am most acquainted with. After (co)nominating quite a few users (most of whom have become to be brilliant and respected administrators), I am even more aware (in addition to observance of the other discussions which take place on WT:RFA and WP:BN etc.) of what the community holds as its benchmark for promotion. I look for many things in potential nominees, some of which is explained here. I understand how to and when to close 'snowballed' RfAs, offer encouragement to those who may have failed, congratulate those who haven't (okay that doesn't need much skill :)) and give notices to those who's RFAs I've closed.
  • I worked at CHU extensively, earlier in my editing period and generally understood the in's-and-out's of clerking the noticeboard for username changes. For example, making sure all requests have been made by the stated accounts (i.e. logged in), have more than a couple of edits, deny requests that have names already listed; promotional names etc. I only have round about a hundred edits at CHU (with a few more at CHU/U) but since not much has changed since I last clerked there, I'm reasonably confident I could do fine.
  • As the BAG (Bot Approval Group) generally decides which bots should be flagged and which shouldn't, the role for a bureaucrat here is relatively different to that of adding the sysop bit to users. I keep an eye on BRfA, and with extra help from those that are already working within those specific capacities, I hope to fulfill a role here well.


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes. Rudget 17:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
A special thank you to all those who were involved, I appreciate you taking your time to support (gasp!) oppose, or neutral. Thanks again. :) Sincere regards, Rudget 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 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 have been a part of these discussions for quite a while now, and I am therefore able to recognise the standards held by the community. Bureaucrats are just regular administrators with the additional technical ability to carry out processes such as changing usernames, promoting administrators (or bureaucrat candidates), flag bots and so forth. I've also had the chance to observe the action in practice over a very long period, since I've been involved with the various processes for a long time. In theory, the promotion lies within the realms of consensus–and as the community is aware, the standards for promoting an administrator candidate is 70-75% at the lower end and anything above that being a bonus to the candidate, RFBs are generally held to a higher mark. However, in addition to this, bureaucrats (whether working single-handedly or in a 'crat-chat' when there is a consideration needed before closure) need to take into account the opposition (and neutrals) to form a proper picture of the candidate, and so consensus can be applied appropriately.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. As I should think, procedure should be followed upon, and discussion between those who are bureaucrats should commence–with that being based solely upon the community consideration that has just taken place over the last week. There's no time limit on RfBs (okay, maybe a week is the norm) but this can be extended to beyond that time based on the outcome and conclusion from the communication with other 'crats. From my point of view, I'd say I've almost always responded to criticism fairly, but, ultimately, this is the decision of you. I've always encouraged openness between users, and dialogue is key to understanding decisions and this is why the discussion between those who are within their capability to decide whether or not a candidate can become promoted, should conduct those contentious nominations decisions, clearly in the light of the community.
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. Simply put, experience as an editor. I work within multiple areas from SSP to the Signpost, and so being compatible with the many editors we're so gracious to have here, is essential to ensure cohesion between those that are making the decisions and those who contribute towards it. I have only had a short tenure as an administrator (very short in some people's minds, and I'd respect opinions based upon that) but in that time I have been involved with many things and getting to know the community that is out there. I've had the great opportunity to colloborate with others on many projects, the time with the euphemised 'mop' has helped even more towards that.
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. Yes, I do. I spend most of my time observing and becoming involved with going's-on there and would enjoy being able to further that.

Question from Avruch

5. Will you add yourself to CAT:BOR?
A.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support - Very conscientious at RfA, his judgment is always solid/sound and he makes it a point to be as thorough as possible. I feel that Rudget has the wit an the patience necessary for cratship. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Responsible and would make for an excellent bureaucrat --Hu12 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Requests for bureaucratship are, at their heart, a project-wide referendum on the judgment of the candidate, and whether or not that judgment would be properly used, in accordance with wikipedia policy and guideline, to determine consensus in requests for administratorship, flagging bots, and changing usernames. To serve as a bureaucrat requires a demonstrated understanding of policies and guidelines, especially vis-a-vis sysops, current familiarity with the RfA process (as I was was politely informed during my first attempt), and a demonstrated understanding of consensus. A bureaucrat must be open, willing to discuss difficult issues, and willing to admit to errors in the rare event they occur. Lastly, a bureaucrat must be cordial and civil, as failed RfA's hurt, whether or not adminship is a "big deal". In my opinion, Rudget fills all of these requirements. I have collaborated with him on a successful RfA, and hopefully another one in the wings, and I can assert he is cognizant, current, and competent when it comes to understanding the RfA process. He is always polite and friendly. The one concern I can forsee is his relative inexperience as an admin, having been successfully elected only in January of 2008. My response to this is that as the primary function of a bureaucrat is to determine consensus on requests for administratorship, his experience and input at this venue, both prior to and after his RfA indicates that he can judge community consensus properly and understands the process. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support yep, I highly trust him. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support. Avi's analysis is persuasive, and says everything I could. I'll add only that I would have no reservations about Rudget's ability to act with care and skill as a bureaucrat. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose While I see that you are a solid admin, I would like to see more time in your current job, say 3 more months or so, before taking on the additional duties of a 'crat. ArcAngel (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    14 weeks is more than 3 months :) Rudget 18:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Please note I said 3 more months.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Sorry, but you've been an admin for fourteen weeks. The fact that you believe the ArbCom is doing a good job at desysopping people who need to be desysopped is also a concern to me. People who think it's working just fine will be less cautious about promoting people that people who don't. I'm going to get bitten for this, but I'm not really impressed with the people you've chosen to nom either. But mostly my oppose is based on the opinion I've formed of you over time, nothing bad, just nothing particularly positive. Reviewing the opposes on your last RfA is also a bit worrying, this is only 3-and-a-bit months ago. Oppose #1 at your RfA is especially relevant. -- Naerii 18:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, and Q2 is just .. no. To be honest, if there's an RfA/B that requires a long drawn out discussion to "determine consensus" or what-have-you, then there is no consensus and it should be closed as such. -- Naerii 18:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Reluctant oppose. Great admin, but has been one for a very short time, and as a result I'm not comfortable with him as a bcrat yet. Would certainly support in 6 months. Wizardman 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Sorry, but you haven't been an administrator for that long. I would rather you continue being an administrator for another couple of months before I would feel comfortable with you being a bureaucrat. Cheers, Razorflame 19:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral. I'd like to see a little more time as an admin. --Kbdank71 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. I'm neutral chiefly because of the severe lack of time as an admin. I don't have a particular figure in mind for what's "the right amount of time", but... 14 weeks ain't it. Sorry, but it's just way too early. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Great admin who does great work, but I would like to see more time as admin (to see how you handle more varied situations and for you to gain experience), then I'll def support in say 5 months. MBisanz talk 19:58, 28 April 2008 (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.