Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Useight 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Useight

Final: (29/15/5); Withdrawn by candidate at 17:05,

3 December 2008
(UTC)

CHU
.

Why am I requesting bureaucratship? Well, as I have stated several times before, I have two purposes on Wikipedia: 1) To improve the encyclopedia; and 2) To help others improve the encyclopedia. I am requesting bureaucratship in order to increase my ability to do item number two.

Being that this is a second request, it is only fitting to discuss what I've done in response to the opposition during my first request. From what I gather, I was previously opposed for several reasons. First was my tenure as an admin. We're all quite familiar with the oft-used measuring stick of one year, which I hadn't met during my previous request. In fact, even now, I still have not met that criteria, having been an admin for only 361 days. So, if I haven't even met that simple criteria, why am I applying now? Because I'm nostalgic sometimes and today marks exactly two years since my first edit.

I was also opposed back in June because of my RFA standards. These standards were outdated, so I spent two weeks gathering my thoughts and restructuring them.

The third main reason for the opposition was my inexperience at

SUL
, but there are fewer requests made there and, therefore, less need for clerking.

Finally, I was also opposed for my participation in admin coaching. I liked the opinions said and internalized them. I retooled my technique to become what I call "editor coaching". If you'd like to see how it has evolved, see User:Useight/Coachees.

Those who know me know I don't like rambling on like I have done here, so I will stop talking about myself. But I am open to any questions anyone may wish to pose and I invite the community to speak candidly. Useight (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Withdrawal statement: I hereby withdraw my request for bureaucratship. I find it a disappointment that this request was unsuccessful because I happen to be in a super minority that does not like bots. When I consider an admin candidate, the most important item I consider is whether I trust their judgement. When it comes to a bot, they have no judgement, so how can I trust it [referring to the judgement, not the bot]? It is astounding that out of 30,000 edits, 4 would make many question my judgement and rationality. That was the first time I had ever ventured into the bot arena; it's almost like pulling out my first AFD contributions and telling me I did those wrong, too. (and I did do them wrong, there's some entertaining ones) To those who referred to my "fear" of adminbots, I don't know how many times I can reiterate that I am not afraid of them. I happen to not like them because they lack judgement, but I'm not scared. Those who think my distaste for bots would affect my ability as a bureaucrat are incorrect. If a BAG member asked me to flag a bot that had community consensus, it's not like I would rush over and say "Bureaucrat note: Flag declined". I'd head over and give it the bot flag. I understand how consensus works; we all have biases, and I would not let mine affect my decision making. If a regular RFA ended 99/1/0 and I happened to be the one, why would I run around and try to prevent the promotion? Same with a BRFA, it's 99 to 1, why would I think that my one opinion can outweigh that of 99 others?

What will I do now that this RFB has been unsuccessful? I'm going to keep on doing what I always do: keep working to improve Wikipedia. But I am also going to contact some BAG members and ask them if they can explain to me what makes bots so great. They may be able to persuade me to think differently of bots, maybe not. Those who have seen my earlier RFA contributions know that I was once adamantly against editors using scripts, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and AWB, but over time was able to see the good in those scripts, even using Huggle myself. Will I be able to do the same for bots? I don't know. What I do know is that it is going to take me far more than 4 edits of discussion to figure it out.

Will I return for RFB Episode III? Kind of has a nice ring to it, but who knows? Six months passed between RFBs one and two, and I know that if there is a number three, it would be after an even longer time, because I know it would take me a long time to become comfortable with bots and I wouldn't even consider another RFB until that time. For now and perhaps forever, I bid RFB adieu. Useight (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2008 (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 read all the discussions at WT:RFA and participate in quite a few of them myself. According to my understanding, the criteria for promotion is community consensus. Times when at least 70-75% of the community favors promotion (in an RFA) is usually indicative of this consensus. However, this 70-75% is typically considered the discretionary range in which the closing bureaucrat uses his/her judgement to ascertain whether a consensus exists. RFBs also have a discretionary "gray area", but it is much higher, roughly 85-90%. However, these numbers are not hard and fast, hence some candidates have been promoted with a supporting percentage lower than the standard and some have ended in "No consensus" with more than 75% in favor of promotion. This is, of course, because promotion is not a vote count, but rather, the words behind the numbers are of greater importance.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. As a new bureaucrat, I would avoid closing these contentious RFAs (or RFBs, as the case may be), as I am conservative and would not jump into a new situation with both feet. However, once I settled in, and was closing such an RFX, I would take my time, carefully weighing the situation gauging whether an consensus exists to promote. In the past, I would have been in favor of a "crat chat", but having had months to think about it (and believe me, I think about Wikipedia during most waking hours), I don't think crat chats would be all that helpful in most situations. If it is that difficult to determine if a consensus exists, then it doesn't exist. Instead I would make my decision carefully and conservatively, preferring to err on the side of caution, and thoroughly explain my thought process when closing said contentious nomination. However, if a crat chat was initiated by another bureaucrat, I would participate in the discussion.
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 believe I have, indeed, demonstrated these traits during my time here on Wikipedia. I have demonstrated fairness and knowledge of policy while resolving minor disputes between editors. I also have to ability to engage others, exemplified by the WikiProject I started, Highly Active Users; forming it required communication and collaboration. I also respond to messages left on my talk page both quickly and civily, as I believe excellent communication skills are paramount to administrators and bureaucrats.
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit
WP:CHU
on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. I check WP:RFA (and WT:RFA) and WP:CHU many times daily, and have been doing so for some time now. I will be able to attend to each consistently in order to fulfill requests and prevent backlogs from forming. However, when it comes to flagging bots, I must admit that I do not have experience there, and therefore, would not jump in on that blindly, but I would be available to help out if needed.

Optional question from

Master&Expert
:

5. From your answer to question 2, you say that 'crat chats are unnecessary if it is overall too difficult to determine a consensus, however there will be times when 'crats will have differing viewpoints on a consensus regarding an RfA/B. Say, for instance, in
Talk) 05:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me take my time answering, I just wanted to post here so you'd know that I did see the question and let me also mention that I never said crat chats are unnecessary and that in such an RFA, I wouldn't simply do anything because I don't think anything should've been done simply in closing an RFA like Danny's. I'll pour over it carefully and get back to you on what I would've done. Useight (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my tone was a bit too strong in asking this question, and for that, I apologize.
Talk) 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, I've done a lot of reading (and had to take some breaks from reading because there was so much) and I have an answer for you now. A lot could be said about this RFA (and a lot has), so I'll keep this as short as I can. I definitely would have taken part in that bureaucrat chat on the matter and I would have been leaning toward promotion. Why? It was a re-confirmation RFA of sorts and those should probably have a slightly different measuring stick. Danny also voluntarily relinquished the sysop bit without being "under a cloud". These, combined with what appeared to be sockpuppetry and canvassing for opposes leads me to be inclined to promote. As a new bureaucrat, though, I would leave the actual closing of such an RFA to a more experienced bureaucrat and only participate in the 'crat chat until I had time to get my feet wet. I would start by closing the obvious ones and move slowly toward the more contentious ones as I became more comfortable with the new role. Useight (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Odd optional question from Protonk (talk)
6. Why, in your opinion, are
WP:CHU and WP:USURP
two different request noticeboards (I know one is a sub-page of another)? More generally, do you feel that the 'crat corners of wikipedia are straightforward enough for new users? This isn't a whine (even though I just noticed the distinction today), rather an attempt to get some insight into how you view the process part of the process. This question is entirely optional, I just ask that you not answer it with the safe, "Everything is perfect" sort of answer. :) Thanks.
For the first part of your question, I believe CHU and USURP are two different pages for a couple of reasons. I believe it is mainly because the process is so different. On CHU, if the name isn't already taken (and assuming no other problems, such as inappropriate usernames), the crat can go ahead and perform the rename. At USURP, however, the requested username has to receive a notice of the proposed usurpation and be given a week to respond. Also, it as to be checked whether the name is usurpable, if it has zero contributions, that that makes it easier, but if the account does have some edits, how do they fall under GFDL? I believe they are also kept on separate pages so they don't get convoluted. Usurpations have to wait a week, while regular renames can be done then. If they were on the same list together, it would be much easier to accidentally skip a rename that was crammed in between two usurpation requests.
The second part of your question is whether the crat areas are straight-forward enough for new users. There are a couple ways to answer this, so I'll go with this: most new users can figure out how to correctly request a username change or usurpation, but some do not make their request correctly. So for a vast majority, that "corner" isn't too difficult. And clicking on "Rename" wouldn't be all that hard for new users to handle, either. But if you're referring to new users closing RFAs, then I'd say no, it is not straight-forward enough for a new user. If it was a straight-up vote count, then yes, most new users could handle it, but since it is not, I have to say no. Correctly closing RFAs requires an in-depth familiarity with the RFA process, how the community runs, and so forth. Useight (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer! Protonk (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Davidwr (talk)
7. Regarding questions 1 and 2, please find one RFA that passed with a !vote percentage of less than 70%, and one !vote that failed with a higher !percentage, and discuss which items in each of the RFAs the closing bureaucrat should focus on when making the decision to pass or fail those particular RFAs. I am not asking if you agree or disagree with what the actual closing 'crat did, only what items you think are important in close RFAs. If there are other items that are common in close RFAs that are not in the two you pick, please discuss those as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I probably can't finish my answer right now, as I have to run off to class very soon (nine more days until graduation!), but I'll get the first part now. I thought I'd select an RFA not oft-mentioned -- that of Krimpet. It was closed as successful in April 2007 at just over 67% support. In these close RFAs, it is very important to look carefully at what was said. Were the supports/opposes just a signature? Were the opposes "User hates Mondays."? Was there any canvassing? Brand new accounts voting? And so forth. Traditionally, an opposer is more obligated to give a reason than a supporter is. In this particular RFA, pretty much everyone who commented gave a solid reason. Useight (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for an RFA that was unsuccessful with a percentage above 70%, there was Aitias' 2nd, which finished at 71%. Again, you have to look closely at what was said. Interestingly, in this particular RFA, there was not a single "weak oppose" (even though that is a marginal difference). There was also some interesting and potential canvassing in the support section. Useight (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very optional questions from Davidwr (talk), You may wait until your RFB is over before answering these if you choose.
8. In rough terms, what is the ideal number of active bureaucrats on Wikipedia? 5-10? 10-20? 20-40? 40-80? 80-160? etc. Unless you say some number smaller than we have now, your answer won't affect my !vote but I like to get to know who is in the cabal.
9. Should a bureaucrat term be limited? If so, should he be able to stand for additional RFBs before his term expires or should he be required to "sit out" a few weeks? These answers won't affect my !vote but I like to get to know who is in the cabal.
Optional questions from MBisanz
10. Of the 3,500+ prior RFAs, only eight have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime; of over 100 prior RFBs, only two have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime. Which of the below would you have extended and under what circumstances and by what process would you extend an RFA in general?
A. In general, I would only extend an RFA if there was some extraordinarily unusual piece of information that was brought to light near the end of an already tight RFA that was causing a flurry of changes, such as many additional supports, many additional opposes, or many switching from one side to the other. Like you said, it is an extremely rare event. Useight (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



11.
WP:BN
and which would you require to re-run RfB?
A.

General comments

RfBs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

  • I would like to clarify my position on admin bots, as that seems to be a point of major interest. Simply put, no, I do not like them. This is because they can't make discretionary calls in the event of an exception to the rule, they just follow their code. However, I can clearly see the community consensus to have some, so I roll with it. I'd say it's like me and scrambled eggs. I don't like scrambled eggs, but I once had a roommate who made some for everyone for breakfast, so I ate them. In the case with admin bots, I don't fear them or wish to change the communities desire to have them, I just happen to be in the minority. In an area that I don't even work. Just as an admin, I do not deal with images or ANI because they are areas that I am not fond of, I would not be working in the bot-flagging area of bureaucratship. Heck, if the community came up and said, "You can only be a bureaucrat if you join Bureaucrats Open for Recall and Admins Open for Recall and agree to drop both positions if you ever show your face at WP:BRFA", then I would accept being completely barred from there, a place I don't want to work anyway, in order to help out in the two areas in which I do want to work: RFA and renames. Useight (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discretion in RFAs: In theory, 'crats have complete discretion over RFAs, just as admins have complete discretion over AFDs. In practice, there's a "discretionary range" - some day 70-80%, I'm not sure what it actually is, in which the closing 'crat has to make a hard decision. Above or below this line and the only reasons to not approve is if the !vote was padded with meatpuppets or !vote-vandals, or if new evidence appeared late that would clearly have affected the outcome had it been known at the start, such as an on-wiki temper tantrum or off-wiki activities that would affect his ability to admin, such as an arrest for murder or something, late in the discussion. The further away you are from that range, the more explaining the crat has to do. It's easy for a crat to, say, approve someone 69-31 if the 31 were obviously "becausewedontlikeyou" and the 69 were very solid reasons to support. However, if it's 31 strong support vs. 69 "becausewedontlikeyou's" and the bit is granted, the bureaucrat will be rightly ridiculed. Likewise, 81 wishy-washy "youaresocooliamyourfriendwillyoubemine" !supports with 19 strong, well-written, non-redundant opposes may nix a nomination, but if you nix a 95-wishy-washy-to-5-solid-oppose people will question your judgment. However, a 99-1 with the sole late oppose being a link to a very recent on-wiki tirade, and I can see the closing 'crat at a minimum extending the discussion if not failing it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to attend several hours worth of classes right now, so I will be unavailable for a few hours. I am halfway through answering Q7 (and have seen Q8-Q11), and I apologize for not having the opportunity to answer them yet. When I return from class, they will be first priority. Thanks. Useight (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support Oh, sure… (although I wish you'd keep talk threads together) – 
    iridescent 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Support Yes, seen you around lots, been impressed. Good luck GTD 02:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support After checking track has been around since Dec 2006 and track as an admin is good .Do not see any concerns.I do feel the user has enough experience now and see the concerns raised in the previous RFB have been overcame.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Very clearly, you have taken to heart the constructive criticism from RFB1 as just that, constructive, and it's been my pleasure to watch you mature and grow as a far and competent admin. I was the very first editor in your oppose column first time around. This time around, I am glad to be amongst your earliest supporters! Best of luck, Keeper ǀ 76 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Experienced, fair and level headed. Nsk92 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While I certainly disagree with some of his opinions regarding adminship criteria, he is experienced in bureaucrat-related areas, will likely figure out the trick of the trade regarding bots with ease, and has demonstrated persistently sound judgement. From the answers to the 'crat questions, he appears to have a good grasp of consensus. A quick glance at his talk page shows that he is civil and articulate, which is an important trait in a bureaucrat, who is expected to be able to effectively clarify decisions they make if need be. It will be to the benefit of Wikipedia to give Useight bureaucrat rights.
    Talk) 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    His response to my query is nothing short of reassuring twards his judgement as a 'crat, and I stand strongly in the support column.
    Talk) 07:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Hello, I'm
    talk) 04:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Support - I always thought the Useight was well on his way to being a crat. He has all the necessary attributes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hello, I'm here to buy a map for Ecoleetage.. Wrong queue? Well while I'm here I'll Support. Has clue, good judgement and the statement reads quite nicely. Ironholds (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support:I supported you last time and I have changed my mind since then :) Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 10:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Don't see why not.
    talk) 12:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Good editor and admin. Good luck,
    talk) 14:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  14. I supported Useight last time: I think he is more qualified now, and he is an honest person. Acalamari 17:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per Malinaccier. Nobody's perfect, but Useight is a trustworthy candidate. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Absolutely. — Realist2 18:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Moving to Neutral --Kbdank71 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes sir. Great candidate IMHO. —Matt (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Can only see him being an excellent crat. Sam Blab 20:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. iMatthew 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  20. I can already tell this will be a close run, but buena suerte. —Ceranthor 21:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Why did I oppose you last go round? ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support: I'm really only voting for you because I'm sick of you constantly running for things. :-) In all seriousness, I've worked around you long enough to know that you'll be a benefit to the project. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support You're either with us, or with the adminbots. Keepscases (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Your disquiet about adminbots is perfectly understandable, though I don't necessarily agree with it. RMHED (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support — xDanielx T/C\R 01:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support – Great candidate. Useight has worked in some bureaucrat-related areas, and I'm sure he'll do fine as a bureaucrat himself. The more bureaucrats the better is what I think is best. No harm in having an extra bureaucrat. The rest of the opposes don't concern me. – RyanCross (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Am I the only one who thinks we've got our standards for RfA and RfB backward? I supported giving Useight the tools to block users, I certainly trust him with the tools to rename them. faithless (speak) 07:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't have faith in this user, don't trust him with bureacratship. In other words, I'm faithless. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um...okay. Thank you for sharing that. faithless (speak) 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - this user would be a positive contributor as a bureaucrat. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - I don't agree with his stance on adminbots, and I am indeed slightly concerned by the almost dogmatic reasoning for it. But beyond that, I do trust him and in all other areas I find him to be an exemplary admin. I would have no problem with him determining RfA consensus or performing renames. ~ mazca t|c 14:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Seeing as we now have many active 'crats and only a trickle of admin candidates I think we need to better understand the reasons the candidate wants this role. The candidate says he is requesting bureaucratship to help others improve the encyclopedia, but then the statement is all about how he's reacted to RFB1 and not at all about what he's going to do to help others improve the encyclopedia. If you think you have some unique way to help then tell us what that is. The statement is all résumé and no agenda. It's not at all what I'm looking for at this point, now that there's virtually no pressure on the current 'crats. It's nothing personal against Useight. There are thousands of good editors on Wikipedia and we shouldn't make all of them bureaucrats just for the asking. --JayHenry (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bureaucratship doesn't really require much of an agenda, as there aren't any more than three jobs available - RfA closure, bot approval, and username changes/usurptions. These are all beneficial to the Wikipedia community with regards to helping other users, as we need administrators, bots, and appropriate usernames. Also, while I agree that there is no shortage of bureaucrats as of late, it doesn't hurt to have another hand on deck should one or more of them burn out at some point.
    Talk) 06:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm aware of what bureaucrats do. Here's a bit more of my thinking: We have dozens of backlogs that need worked on (but they don't come with fancy titles)--so I'm highly reluctant to support candidates who "just want to help", but want to help in 1) an area that doesn't need help but 2) does come with a fancy title. If you just want to help because we need helpful tasks done then there's lots of places to go do it, and it won't matter if you have a fancy title. If you want the fancy title for an area that doesn't need help, you're going to have to give me a real clear reason why. But at any rate, even if the bureaucrats were drowning in tasks at the moment, I'd be reluctant to support a bureaucrat who's opposed to a transparent adminbot process for, what I consider, fairly dubious reasoning. --JayHenry (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm opposing for several reasons, primarily their
    WP:BRFA unless help is needed, I see no way a reasonable person can put faith in their judgment there. east718 // talk // email // 06:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I have to say something about my participation at those two BRFAs. My main point at each can be found at Cydebot 4 and FA Template Protection Bot. In both, I do not believe I was "completely devoid of reason" or "solely [appealing] to emotion and fear-mongering." My point was that bots cannot make judgement calls. I never proclaimed that there would be SkyNet problem. I may not always agree with the consensus, but I always conform to it. Also, I never advocated promoting all RFAs that finished above 75%. Here I proposed closing one at No Consensus that ended at 78%. Useight (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You said right in Q1 70-75% is the discretionary zone (this implies that anything above is an automatic pass). And your gripe with the template protection robot was that bots "don't have the ability to make judgment calls," despite acknowledging there "aren't really any calls" for this specific bot to make. I'm afraid I fail to see the sense in your concerns. As an admin - I have noticed that you are quite competent and act with equanimity, but as a b'crat - I'm sorry, but your view on the numbers disqualifies you. east718 // talk // email // 07:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also said in the same paragraph, "However, these numbers are not hard and fast, hence some candidates have been promoted with a supporting percentage lower than the standard and some have ended in "No consensus" with more than 75% in favor of promotion." I never imply anything and nothing should be inferred or extrapolated from what I say; I'm always quite frank and say what I mean. Useight (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I always thought 75% was the boundary, and bcrats had leeway from 70-75%, some even going into the 60s. Where does the idea that it's 80% come from? I've never seen that. –
    talk) 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The
    iridescent 15:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Oppose per absolute opposition to bot accounts with the sysop flag. While bots don't have the judgement to be admins, there are tasks requiring the sysop flag which don't require judgement that can and should be automated. I don't trust the judgement of someone who denies that. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose. Candidate has little experience with bots, but strong oppinions in this area. He also has the wrong experience with people — promoting mandarinism. He thinks that reconfirmation RfA standards should be different than those for the
    ping 10:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Oppose - After thinking it over time and time again, I am opposing per my neutral. Xclamation point 11:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cydebot 4. There are two things that bother me here: a) Useight made four posts to the page but three of those contained nothing more than "I'm aware of <good reason 1> and <good reason 2> and <good reason 3>, but I just don't like it" (emphasis mine, paraphrased from [1]) - a bureaucrat justifying a decision in this way is not good; and b) the one shred of proper reasoning he did give was deeply flawed to the point where I cannot trust his judgement. Sorry. – Steel 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC) (Probably unnecessary disclaimer: I was in favour of this bot getting the sysop bit)[reply]
  7. Per Steel, and the apparent "fear" of adminbots. –
    talk) 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Per east, the irrational fear of adminbots is pretty troubling and not really compatible with the goal to "help others improve the encyclopedia." Mr.Z-man 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Irrational fear of adminbots, and per east.
    RockManQReview me 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Oppose Adminbots had community consensus and the approved ones by BAG work well. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - "Actually, I am not a big fan of ClueBot or any other reverting bots, they often take away my opportunity to build up my edit count." Also, We need bureaucrats who understand community consensus and make decisions with sound reasoning and judgement, not bureaucrats that oppose adminbots because they don't like them. As Cyde said in the BRFA; "this makes just about as much sense as opposing all RfAs because you don't think Wikipedia ought to have administrators". ~
    User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Oppose - Your fear of adminbots doesn't have me worried, oh no, but what it means overall does. East and Steel also raise some valid concerns. —
    neuro(talk) 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  13. Per Ameliorate. Wikipedia isn't a game. Adminbots are there to help take out the most obvious vandalism; they, hopefully, let us deal with the more complex vandalism that can't be reverted with an algorithm and script. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Neither do I trust him, nor his judgement. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. We need bureaucrats to take an active role in improving automation of some admin tasks (including, yes, placing limits on automation), but taking an ideological stand is not helpful.
    Chick Bowen 16:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Neutral

Neutral moving to oppose - I'm on the fence here. I would like to support, but I can't really, per WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Cydebot 4 and WP:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot. Now, this may sound biased coming from a member of the bot community, but being a crat involves dealing with bot flaggings. I don't think that Useight won't refuse to flag a bot against consensus, but I would rather not have someone who is against current policy be involved with the process. Xclamation point 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, Useight state above (Q4) that he is inexperienced with bots and likely won't work there. FWIW. Keeper ǀ 76 03:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral -- but will change to support on December 6, 2008, after one full year of service. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Please see these new standards. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral This user is a fantastic admin, but with the 'crat situation as it is, I'd like to see more getting involved in bot work. The candidate expresses little wish to work there, but it's one place where more bureaucrats are needed. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Good user, I took a very deep look last RfB, but his views on adminbots trouble me.--Maxim(talk) 00:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per Maxim. Leujohn (talk)
  5. Neutral (from support). I had forgotten about your opinion on adminbots. --Kbdank71 15:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Useight_2&oldid=1087619096"