From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Question 4
Below is the entirety of question 4, and my original answer before changing my response. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- 4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on IRC or 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. No, I don't make promises without thinking them through very carefully, and I'm not sure why I'd want to make that pledge. On the other hand, I rarely use IRC, and I don't expect I would discuss it outside of talk pages. But if someone wanted to discuss a promotion with me in confidence, I wouldn't shut them out.
- Quadell, I wish you would rethink this and clarify your thinking. Only elected bureaucrats are charged with deciding on promotions. For what reason and with whom would you "confidentially" discuss a promotion outside of the view of the community and other bureaucrats? -- Cecropia 18:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- As an example, if a new user asked me, via e-mail, why I declined to promote someone who received 65% support, I'm not promising to delete the e-mail without responding. (If I had answered "yes" to the above, I would feel obligated to ignore the user's question.) I would instead explain the finer points of consensus to the user, and I would speak in general terms as much as possible instead of referring to a specific promotion.
- Let me put it another way: I am willing listen to anyone in any forum, public or private. I might answer their private questions, though I frequently would decline. But I will never allow any non-public discussion to affect a decision I made regarding promotions, and I will never tell a user anything that I wouldn't tell the community as a whole. Maybe I'm being too legalistic here. I hope this is sufficient.
- My concern is corresponding with someone during the period in which a promotion is being decided and then deciding on the promotion without revealing the contact first whether or not you feel you were influenced. If someone were to email me and say "Did you now that CandidateBoy vandalized an article and is unfit for promotion" I would have one of three choices: (1) tell the writer to put that contention in the RfA so everyone can see and respond; (2) reveal the email to everyone myself in the RfA; or (3) both. And as to IRC, I would not discuss it at all. I would say, "if you know something, the proper forum is the RfA." I would rather be rude than compromised. If you feel a promotion decision is diffiuclt, your only recourse is to discuss it with other bureaucrats and noone else. Are we on the same page? Added at 19:35: Also see my response to Quadell's questions on his talk page -- Cecropia 19:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
|
[edit] Should we semi-protect this vote?
With all the AOL trolling, I suggest semi-protecting the voting page. Who knows when this will end. --King of All the Franks 06:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, NSLE. --King of All the Franks 06:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is wholly inappropriate. That prevents very new users from participating, when they are allowed to. It is for the 'crats to filter out meats/socks, and for everyone to use the standard editing tools and a dose of common sense to remove the vandals. I wish people wouldn't use WP:SEMI as a tool for disposing of any one they aren't familiar with. -Splashtalk 12:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- If a user new enough to be blocked by semi-protection voted on this page, they would probably be disregarded as a possable sock/meat puppet anyway. Just an observation. Raven4x4x 10:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd also have to oppose protecting the vote page...but then again I oppose crossing out anonymous votes as I said here (a recommendation, I might add, that received only positive feedback...) Tomertalk 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Withdrawing? No.
I see Quadell has withdrawn because of the oppose votes: only eight, some of them opposing only because they'd never seen him around, but they themselves haven't been around for long. Great shame. He's exactly the type of admin who should be promoted in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I highly doubt that Quadell dropped out, since the edit was made by an AOL IP. I'm going to take it off until he confirms it. -- MicahMN | μ 01:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh good, thanks for checking that. I didn't even think to look. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I have not withdrawn my nomination, nor will I. It seems an anonymous vandal is doing anything he can to prevent my promotion. We'll see if he succeeds. Thanks for the encouragement! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 03:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it was a hoax. I'll keep an eye on this page. --Viriditas 04:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Results
So does this mean I didn't make it? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 07:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
