Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rdsmith4 2

Rdsmith4

Vote here (51/1/0) ending 06:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Rdsmith4 (talk · contribs)

I've been a Wikipedian since April 2004 and a sysop since October 2004. Like Andrevan, I nominated myself last year (see my old nom, which for some reason does not appear in the archives) and discovered that many editors did not think additional bureaucrats were necessary. However, I feel that the new duty of changing usernames warrants a few more helping hands, and I am quite willing to assist in whatever administrative duties I can.

I believe that in my actions as an administrator I have gained the trust of the community; thus, I once again submit my request for bureaucratship. — Dan | Talk 06:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone who supported me, thanks so much. I really appreciate your compliments and will continue to serve the community as best I can. — Dan | Talk 06:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As I supported last time, so will I support this time. Andre (talk) 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
2. Most definately, a great admin and I think that we need more bureaucrats to help users with username changes.
   Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C}
   ----- 07:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
3. Agreed. Radiant_>|< 07:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support--Exir Kamalabadi^{Feel free to criticize me} 09:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. I believe that the pool of bureaucrats should be enlarged, and Dan is a perfect candidate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support! We need more bureaucrats, and Dan's the man ;-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
7. Merovingian (t) (c) 13:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. As with Andrevan, this is a no-brainer, entirely worthy. Func( t, c, @, ) 14:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Due to username changes, we now need more bureaucrats. Carbonite | Talk 14:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Uh-oh...what has andre started? A new influx of bureaucrats...this oughtta hold us for 3 years now! Anyways, Rdsmith4, in my opinion, is one of the best editors of Wikipedia, and thus is fully deserving of the bureaucrat title. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I sure hope not! I want to run once I hit one year on Wikipedia :-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

11. Support; another I fully support and trust to use good judgement here. Because of our increased, and still increasing size, a couple more bureaucrats are a good idea. Antandrus (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - we need bureaucrats who can ignore the red tape at times. Dan is a fair, level-headed and practical person. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support --
    talk
    ) 23:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
14. Yup - a sudden flurry of worthy potential bureaucrats - is this the start of a trend? Grutness...wha? 01:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. I don't know if it's a trend, Grutness, but it's good for the community to have a little practice with these nominations. --Michael Snow 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Absolutely. I think it's distinctly unfortunate that nominations were effectively frozen for so long, and I have no problem admitting that some of the current bureaucrats (myself included) have been slow to act. Pakaran 01:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. Great admin, would make a good bureaucrat. JYolkowski // talk 02:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support: a trustworthy and valuable editor who will handle the position well. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support, Tony the Marine 05:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
20. Support, K1Bond007 05:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
21. El_C 08:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support, Dan would be a very level-headed bureaucrat. Rje 12:02, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
23. Support -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support, It's a wonder to me why you failed in your previous campaign. Keep up the good work! I hope to see you as a bureaucrat soon! corypark 17:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

    corypark, why don't you use your user account to vote instead of the anonymous IP address 68.21.6.1 (talk · contribs)? You know, the user account "corypark" you created just today, a few minutes after you (as 68.21.6.1) nominated corypark for adminship... the user account that still has zero contributions as of this moment? Please don't take this as an attack, it's just a bit puzzling. -- Curps 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

25. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Not sure we need more bureaucrats, we just need the ones we have to realise their duties have been extended to renaming accounts. But what the heck, have a bureaucratship. --fvw* 05:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. ral315 05:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. JuntungWu 12:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. A pleasing addition to the poorly named "bureaucrat" class.
    5 pillars
    13:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Oh, why not? B-crats could use some new faces. Acetic Acid (talk) 14:33, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
31. Support Good candidate. Thanks for answering my questions :).
    T | @ | C 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Support I believe that he would make a great B-Crat. If you don't agree with me, take a look at some of the great admin above who are supporting him. Tony the Marine 04:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. The more, the merrier! --Titoxd 06:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
34. David Gerard 12:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
35. James F. (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
36. Theo (Talk) 16:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Absolutely. --Canderson7 18:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
38. On my first opportunity to vote on a candidacy for bureaucratship, I vote support for this user.  Denelson83  23:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. Give this one a bigger mop! -- BD2412 ^talk 17:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support --Saluyot 01:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
42. Support No brainer. Jobe6 08:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
43. Support --Alan Au 14:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
44. He can have the keys to the key cabinet to the mop cupboard. [[smoddy]] 17:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support without prejudice. Hall Monitor 18:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support, thumbs up! -
    Mailer Diablo 06:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
47. Support, I never forget those who believed in me. I think you'll make a great Bureacrate. Tony the Marine 08:16, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
48. SupportRobert McClenon 19:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Fire Star 22:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. —RaD Man (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. --
   Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]

• Just for fun I'll throw out a question :). You mention in 3A that you've never been sufficiently "wikistressed" by any turn of events, and assert that you're uncontroversial enough for bureaucratship. So, does this mean that you've never been in any real edit wars? Does it mean you've been in several edit wars and have been able to keep level-headed? Or, does it mean you've intentionally avoided edit wars and left them to others to handle?
  T | @ | C 21:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No, I can't recall ever having engaged in an edit war over content. This is certainly not to say I've never been in conflict with another user, but rather that whenever a conflict has arisen, I've always been able to hash it out in discussion. — Dan | Talk 21:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the answer :). For the followup (and final) question - when determining whether or not a candidate will be promoted to an admin, do you consider any edit war at all negative? Do you think someone who has been in a few wars but has made up with most of the participants is better than who has not? Will this not factor into your decision? Or will you generally go more with the votes of the community instead of using personal judgement?
      T | @ | C 22:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • If I am the one making the decision, my opinion on the candidate with regard to editing habits is marginally relevant at best. I trust the community to determine whether a candidate is qualified; my discretion only applies to discounting votes whose legitimacy is in question. — Dan | Talk 23:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Did the candidate answers disappear from the previous nomination? I'm just curious where they went. --Alan Au 09:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It became quickly obvious that the nomination would fail, so I never answered the questions. — Dan | Talk 14:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. The community has decided that 80% is the magic proportion of support votes, and I will abide by this decision, using, as always, a bureaucrat's discretion with regard to sockpuppet or otherwise questionable voters.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. I am practiced at enduring criticism and am unafraid to make a decision with which some editors may disagree. My standards for all nominations, contentious or otherwise, are the same.

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 have peacefully resolved all of my disagreements with other users, whether by compromise or persuasion, and have yet to become "wikistressed" by any turn of events. My extensive editing history has required that I read and interpret all manner of policies and guidelines, and I feel that I am levelheaded and uncontroversial enough to serve as an example for the community. — Dan | Talk 06:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4. Bureaucrats have the capability to rename user accounts. Aside from normal conditions where a user specifically requests that their name be modified, do you believe that a community consensus should be required before a bureaucrat makes such a change?

If a user with a disruptive name actively resisted a name change, I would request comments and require consensus before changing it. I don't think this will occur very often, however, since such users are normally blocked and given the opportunity to create a new account before they have the chance to make many edits with the old one. — Dan | Talk 21:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]