Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jtkiefer

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.

[edit] Jtkiefer

Vote here (17/17/4) ending 12:32 November 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer (talk • contribs)

WITHDRAWN Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language. Asking whether the community comes before or after this goal is really asking the wrong question: the entire purpose of the community is precisely this goal." -- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia-l mailing list, March 8, 2005

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and wikipedia is a community, that fact is unchangeable and the community and the encyclopedia and the encyclopedia are in a state of symbiosis. My goal on the wiki thus far has been to promote harmony between the two and through my time here, I believe that I have done just that to the best of my abilities. When first thinking about how to write this I was sorely tempted to quote my edit counts and my achievements but I have come to the realization that edit counts are not important and unless taken with a very large grain of salt are indeed detrimental to the community as a whole, also I think that while quoting contributions is all well and good but that it would be better to allow the community as a whole to take their own view on my contributions.

I have read the pages on what being a bureaucrat entails and the duties and responsibilities of bureaucrats. In a pre-emptive response to those who would say that we do not need more bureaucrats I disagree, as we get more adminship noms and hopefully in the future when a workaround to the issues with renaming users is found we will need more and more bureaucrats to promote admins and to deal with the inevitable backlog that we will probably end up having on the requested renaming page. Even though I know for a fact that I have not been here as long as many other editors I honestly do not feel that time is an issue since during that time here I have actively contributed to the project quite a bit, I have participated in all aspects of it from adding information to articles to helping develop and change policy as needed and have even begun to help do some of the grunt work at RFAr.

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 17:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Full Support! FireFox 17:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support fully. I see them everywhere and see no reason to believe that they wouldn't serve in the position well. --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support --pgk^(talk) 18:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support good A's will make good B's. BD2412 T 18:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Great admin record and high level of involvement; will make a good Bureaucrat. --Alan Au 18:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, because he's so damn good. Babajobu 20:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 23:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Bureaucratship should be granted liberally to trusted contributors. Andre (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. While this is likely to fail at this point, I don't think we should oppose solely on "we don't need any more" grounds. Nobody's going to die because we add another bureaucrat. And Jtkiefer is a trusted contributor, per Andre. Ral315 (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support I wish you had waited a while longer before doing this, but from my interactions with you, I have no problem supporting. I'm also impressed by the bold and professional way you handled Boothy's block. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Strong Support Always been fair as an admin, Always been polite that I've seen, always thought a few steps ahead, seems like a great cantidate for Beureaucratship ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 04:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support - for the same reasons I supported his RFA. --Phroziac^(talk) 04:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. "It's no big deal." Sarge Baldy 17:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Per Ral315 and GregAsche.--Sean|Black 20:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Medium Support Per the answer to Phroziac's question below. I still disapprove of self-noms, but i'm willing to go higher than "Weak" Support due to the answer of that question -- This page doesn't need any more Boothy-esque thinking. Karmafist 02:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. Good admin. Courteous, and fair. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 15:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Jtkiefer, you're clearly very dedicated to the project and its goals, but I would really prefer well more than six months of experience for this position. — Dan | Talk 18:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose — while Jtkiefer is a great user, less than three months of adminship (rights granted August 29, 2005) and barely over six months overall isn't enough for bureaucratship. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Several reasons. I don't think we need more bureaucrats, and I personally would prefer the powers and authority narrowly held. I would also prefer much longer with the project. I would also want much longer as an admin. I don't really want to say this since I think we're pretty ok with each other, but in the few personal discussions I've had with Jtkiefer, he's demonstrated a tendency toward somewhat...hasty...phrasing for really no reason e.g. [1] and others on-Wiki and on IRC that I don't keep logs for. I would also want some demonstration of bureaucratic abilities: promoting sociology over statistics in particularly obfuscatory cases, filleting out anti-wiki from pro-wiki in very grey cases etc. It's just that I can't recall noticing such contribs (I'm not saying Jtkiefer gets such things wrong, just that I haven't spotted good demonstrations of such). I do not think that what I've said here makes Jtkiefer in any way a bad admin — he's a good one — but I don't think he is quite there for bureaucracy yet. -Splash^talk 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

   Well I think that diff can easily be taken out of context, every person gets stressed and I regret that, however that was quite some time ago and I do my best just like everyone else. Also if you would like to discuss privately which statements of mine from IRC you disagree with I'd be very interested to hear your opinions and/or criticisms of them since even if you did keep logs posting logs on IRC is against policy I think IRC would be the best medium for this, if you are interested you know my nick. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Splash. I like JtK as an editor, person, and admin, but the quotation Splash cites alone is enough to delay elevation. Time concerns are also valid. Xoloz 22:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

   "that quotation alone is enough to delay elevation." Why? I don't see why quoting Jimbo should cause you to oppose someone's nomination. Raven4x4x 00:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

   Sorry, I didn't mean the Jimbo one, I meant the one cited by Splash. Modified remark for clarification. Xoloz 03:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

   As I stated above I think this quote can easily be taken out of context, at the time I was frustratred at what at the time I saw as a sanctioned violation of policy, that was in the past and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any administrator or user for that matter who has not said something like that. As I said before I regret doing that and if I could I would take it back. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose, not enough time. Private Butcher 00:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose The quote linked to from Splash's vote above is worrisome for an admin, much less a bureaucrat. Plus, the times (both total and adminship) are way too short. Turnstep 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
7. I oppose only on the grounds that I believe an Admin should be in that position for at least 6 months. I will support Jtkiefer after the end of March 2006. MONGO 02:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Although I think Jtkiefer meant no harm, he was pretty quick on the trigger on the deletion of Fuckfrance. I would reconsider after more time. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose Jtkiefer needs to improve on knowing when to act and how to sort things out. Once Jtkiefer has improved I dont see why Jtkiefer can't be a bureaucrat. --Adam1213 Talk+ 07:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. An RfA's purpose is to determine if there is consensus to promote. I disagree with Jtkiefer's answer that extending the voting period or calling for a revote should be done if there isn't a clear consensus. If there isn't clear consensus, it's up to bureaucrats to make a decision. Extending the voting period is only appropriate if the number of votes is so small that a consensus can't be determined. With the growth of Wikipedia, it's very rare to see an RfA get less than 30 votes. I also would like to see more time on Wikipedia, both as a user and an admin. Carbonite | Talk 18:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Good user, but not enough time. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose Not so long ago, he was promoted an administrator, if we are to use such a basic standard to promote people as bureaucrats, nearly all administrators could pass the test. Fadix 01:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

    And is there some sort of problem with that that I'm missing? Sarge Baldy 03:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

    Don't think so, just that every members can not be administrators, and that all administrators can not be bureaucrats. Fadix 17:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

    I fail to see the logic, could you elaborate? Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

    And I fail to see why I should elaborate more, since I don't feel the need to convince anyone at this point. But since you are asking further clarification, just let say that being an administrator is not reason enough to be a bureaucrat, and presenting himself as soon after being an administrator keeps me wondering. There are many many examplary administrators that were members for pretty some time now and they don't request bureaucratic privilages because they probably don't feel they fit there. Fadix 02:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

13. Oppose Didn't we just support your nomination for administrator? A lot more time would be helpful. Difference between Admins and B-Crats: Admin goes rogue, another admin can fix it; a B-crat goes rogue, a steward (who are harder to find than an admin) needs to fix it. Not that you'll be a corrupt Bureaucrat or another, just trying to show why Bureaucrats need to earn more trust than Administrators. It is a big deal. Acetic'^Acid 07:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

    How many administrators have "gone rogue" to date? How many bureaucrats? I honestly can't think of any users offhand that have just decided to completely snap at some point, so I hardly see this as a viable risk. Sarge Baldy 15:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

    I am partiall perplexed and partially hurt by this, are you saying I am a rogue administrator and that I would go rogue if given bureaucrat status, I don't think that bureaucrat status is much different than administrator status in the respect that a bureaucrat only has two extra functions which are to rename users and to promote admins as per consensus. I can't even to begin to imagine a situation where myself or even anyone would even begin to think about randomly adminning people or randomly renaming users. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

    First, to answer Sarge, instead of citing numbers, I'll point out the most extreme cases of each. Adminstrator - User:Isis, banned. Bureaucrat: User:Ed Poor Stepped down to settle Arb case against him. And Jt, I'm sorry you feel hurt by my comments. It was strictly hypothetical, and in no way reflects you or your contributions. My biggest concern is that you're trying to amass a ton of power in a relatively short period of time. Your first RFA nomination was posted after you had been with the project for 2 months or so. Many people, including me, asked you to wait a bit longer, at least a month. You rushed into a second nomination after only three weeks. But I overlooked that and supported you. Now, a month after that, here you are again, wanting more power. To my knowledge, there is no desperate need for more bureaucrats at the moment. There is no severe backlog of admins-to-be. What are your motives? Why do you want this position so badly and so soon? Acetic'^Acid 07:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

14. oppose for reasons given above dab (ᛏ) 20:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

    There are several reasons above listed, is there a particular reason or are there particular reasons that convinced you to vote this way? Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

    let's say that the "too soon" argument alone is sufficient for me. If we need more bureaucrats, let's look among those admins who have proven their capacity for angelic patience and neutrality for at least a year or so. But your apparent eagerness for ranks doesn't sit right with me either. I am not saying you are a "sleeper troll", but I do not think the attitude is commendable. No, you will not go 'rogue' on us. But in cases of close call RFAs, bureaucrats do have a tangible amount of power, and I prefer to have people whose calm hand I trust in the position. dab (ᛏ) 09:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

15. Oppose. I don't see that we need more bureaucrats now. No Account 01:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose Too soon --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose. If we did need more bureaucrats, and I don't think the case has been made here that we do, I would prefer a candidate with longer experience as admin. Experience counts in many things, and (frankly) I don't like to have it shouted at us that we should not consider it. Jonathunder 17:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have never said that experience should not be considered I only stated that experience and time can be and many times are two entirely different things and are not always one and the same. Also the caps seemed to be the only way to actually get people to read what I was saying otherwise I wouldn't have used them. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Same reason as Redwolf24 request for bureaucratship. Very Good Editor but Time is an issue here. Likely will support in June-July --JAranda | watz sup 22:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Would certainly support in future. --Fire Star 00:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Probable does not have enough experience, and don't need many bureaucrats. At least Boothy443 related pile-on votes didn't come yet.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 06:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
4. I have no major objections to Jtkiefer becoming a bureaucrat, he is a sensible and courteous user and admin. However, at this time I don't see any specific need for another b'crat and if we did I would rather give the job to someone with a little more experience. Rje 17:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Even though I respect everyone's vote and that they are welcome to have their own criteria to how they decide to vote I strongly disagree with the fact that most of these oppose votes are only due to time, as I wrote in my initial statement I feel that a person should not be disqualified only due to the fact that they have not been on the project as long as you would like and that people are voting oppose without looking at anything else other than the amount of time I have been on the project. I think that a canidate should not be immediately disqualified as a canidate based on one criteria especially when that one criteria is unchangeable and not related to their actions on the wiki and isn't really related to whether they'd do a good job and/or be responsible. I think I've already proven that I am responsible even if I have not been here for the "correct amount of time". Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank all of those who brought up valid concerns about my actions and/or advice on how I can be a better editor/administrator since I've read all your comments and getting advice from your peers is one of the best ways to become better. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to answer there. There are many, many administrators out there, and many that were administrators for some time. There are many excellent administrators that have a good experience here in Wikipedia. While I agree that time could be disregarded in many RfA, I disagree for RfB. Time is very important in this cases, because we have to choose from the hundreds(?) administrators, and since there are many, many very good veteran administrators, each parametters that could be secondary for an RfA compared to others, becomes important for an RfB. Imagine in the cases of a university faculty, where many good professors are considered to be the director of their faculty, do you think that the young one just being chosen as a permanent professor will be chosen? Seriously answer here. Fadix 02:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Fadix, except for the 'many more experienced administrators' aren't running, Jtkiefer is. When they run, support them, but comparing him to people not running doesn't make sense. Will they get jealous? No, because they're not running. Apples to Oranges. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

True, they are not running, but I do think that it makes sense to compare him, comparaison helps people to take a good decision. I've voted Neutral for Kelly, who is very experienced, that's the standard I set to myself, and from that comparaison, I can't do otherwise then opposing Jtkiefer RfB. But had I not taken Kelly for comparaison, I would have taken another experienced administrator that is not yet a bureaucrat. Lastly, if we believe that we need more bureaucrats why not convincing veteran administrators(who are not Arbitrators, I still have problem with that :) ) to present themselves as candidates? Fadix 03:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

So just because you voted neutral on Kelly due to time you feel obligated to oppose me due to time? I don't see how that really makes much sense especially since time is a fairly bad qualifier in reality since there are users who have been here only a week and have read all of the Wikipedia policies (I've interacted with a few) and then on the other end there are editors who have been here in years and don't even know policy at all and that's only using one qualifier (knowledge of policies) as an example, you can go over a broad spectrum of them and it will be the same thing, TIME DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING IN TERMS OF HOW GOOD A BUREAUCRAT OR ADMIN WILL BE. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

jtkiefer, these polls are not so much about "are you worthy", but about "will it benefit the project". If it was clear the project needed another bureaucrat, and you were the first to volunteer, I would vote for you without second thoughts. But you seem to be under the misapprehension that bureaucratship is somehow due to you because you deserve it. This is flawed thinking. We would have to nominate dozens of bureaucrats before you got your turn. So, you say, others are not interested in this type of recognition, but you are? And we should indulge you because you want the community's recognition, or you want to have a "this user is a bureaucrat" badge on your userpage? This is not what these ranks are supposed to be about, and it makes me want to support you less, not more. I have been on a wikibreak, and I have not followed goings-on closely. Yet I have come across your name twice in the past month, because you have issued an indefinite block on users, in spite of policy, as a one-man-jury. These users needed to be blocked, but that didn't excuse your playing arbcom. Now I learn that you are a 'new' admin. I think you will need some time first to familiarize yourself with your present rank, and the privileges and responsibilities it entails, before you start looking for higher ones. Now, bureaucrats are not as crucial positions as arbcom or board members, but since we need so few of them, I personally think that we may demand rather high standards of the candidates, higher than for adminship, anyway. Personally I would prefer knowledge of candidates' real names, and age, as well as a spotless record of adminship. This may be over the top (but I certainly prefer to know more than a nickname of our arbcom members, so I think it is straightforward to consider it a desideratum of our bureaucrats too), but the point is that nobody should vote for you just because you want it badly, or because you are a great guy, but only out of consideration for the benefit of Wikipedia. So opposing your nomination does not mean I think you are somehow unqualified. I respect you as a very valuable editor, I just don't see why you must be bureaucrat at this point. dab (ᛏ) 09:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment – Quote: ...have participated in all aspects of it... I just want to know, have you worked on and successfully nominated an article to Featured status? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to chip in my two cents here to this discussion, given that I've opposed the two recent RfBs based mainly on the issue above. Bureaucratship is vastly different from adminship, and parallels between the two should be taken cautiously. While adminship "isn't a big deal" (the often referred clichè by now), bureaucratship is a big deal. We only have a handful of bureaucrats (22, I think?), and all of them are highly regarded users that we have absolute trust in. While I'm not saying that we don't trust you, all of the bureaucrats (if I remember correctly from last time) had significantly more than three months of adminship under their belts and the vast majority had been on Wikipedia for more than the amount of time you have been here. You were granted admin rights August 29; it is less than three months since you were granted adminship. Time, while certainly not the sole factor to be taken into account, is a huge factor in bureaucratships. Time shows commitment to the project, and our bureaucrats should show the highest level of commitment to the project. Time allows us to adequately analyze a bureaucratship candidate, and time can often distinguish good men from great men. Bureaucratship is a big deal, and we must not let our standards slip — it is an elite position that should only be granted to those that have proven their trustworthy-ness. Those that stick with the project, through rough times and good times, often prove themselves worthy of bureaucratship. Time is the greatest test that candidates face. In addition, we must also draw on past precedents — is it really fair to apply different standards to bureaucratship candidates when there has been little change in the way bureaucrats work? Combined with the fact that there is no pressing need for more bureaucrats (though I would never oppose solely on such grounds), I must oppose your candidacy. Thanks a lot. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 14:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but why does everyone think it is such a big deal? it's not like bureaucrats can rule the world or something, bureaucrats are admins with two extra functions (one currently until/unless rename user comes back up) and they are still bound by A) community decision, and B) Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In anwser to your question Nichalp, no I haven't gotten an article up on FA. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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. I understand a consensus to promote to be roughly 75-80% though it really depends on the individual nomination since each nomination brings with it different circumstances and so the consensus to nominate may fall at a different percentage number.

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

A. I would discuss it with fellow bureaucrats and if at that point there was no clear consensus I'd either extend the time until closing to allow for for a more clear consensus to develop and if even then there was no clear consensus I'd suggest a revote.

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 am active in many aspects of the wiki including AFD and RC Patrol so I have both gotten the chance to interact with many of my fellow users as well as read up on many of the wikipedia policies. I pride my self on the fact that I have been able to be civil in my dealing with other wikipedians and have quite a few good discussions with fellow editors on my and their talk page(s).

4. Look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bushytails. Do you think that we should discount "silly" oppose votes, such as opposing a user because they wrote an article on sex toys? And what's your opinion on consensus on that RFA? --Phroziac^(talk) 04:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

A. I wouldn't totally disregard any of the votes however I would put less weight on votes that were only about the content dispute and not about the user in general. I would also put more weight on votes that expressed valid critiques and brought up this user's actions.

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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.