Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) at 18:25, 25 January 2007 (reply to MatthewFenton). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nihonjoe

Voice your opinion (0/1/0); Scheduled to end 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - After being here for a while, I've decided I'd like to be able to help out the community a little more. While current discussions seem to be of the opinion that there are only a few active bureaucrats, and that they have no problem keeping up with everything they have to do, a quick glance through WP:CHU tells me that additional bodies helping out would be good (there are currently 36 requests listed there, though a few of them have already been handled). I believe "having bureaucrats handy is a good thing" (to quote Durin over here). I think it's always good to spread the burden, as it were, and I'm willing to help out. I've been a significant contributor so far, and I think I have a lot more to offer the community. Thank you. ···日本穣 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As it's a self-nom (of course), I accept. ···日本穣 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic 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 read them, and I've been paying close attention to the current discussion regarding Ryluong's RfA. The general consensus seems to be that consensus for promotion is generally reached when a candidate receives at least 75-85% support from those expressing an opinion during the !voting period. This doesn't meant that someone achieving 85% approval is automatically made an admin, neither does it mean that someone who receives 74.99% approval automatically doesn't. Most RfA's have a clear consensus one way or the other, but there are always a few that would be considered "borderline" as it were. I believe that in questionable cases, consensus among bureaucrats should be sought in order to make sure 1) that community consensus is followed, and 2) that the good of the project is protected. ···日本穣 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

A. I answered this one above. I believe that in contentious cases, consensus among bureaucrats should be sought in order to make sure 1) that community consensus is followed, and 2) that the good of the project is protected. Any such discussion should be in a location which can be referred to in the future should anyone every have a question on the process that led to the final decision. I believe it is important to consider seriously all opinions expressed on the matter, and make a determination based on that careful consideration. ···日本穣 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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 that anyone looking back through my contributions will see that I have tried to be fair in all cases, even in those instances where I've been accused of siding with one or another side in a dispute. Even in issues where I have a strong opinion, I always try to remember that others may have equally strong opinions on the topic, and I always try to assume good faith unless an editor has clearly shown that they are not acting in good faith. Even in such cases, I try to treat them with respect and maintain "professional courtesy" when dealing with them. I also try to explain policies and guidelines in a non-confrontational manner, and try to help new editors gain a better understanding of how things work here. I'm not perfect, but I do the best I can. I'm always willing to help out if someone has a question. ···日本穣 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on 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, or at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard where such discussion would be transparent?

A. This is a somewhat weasely question, I believe, as it assumes that all circumstances are the same, and that there is no possibility for a situation which would require more discretion. In general, I will only discuss matters in area where transparency is assured. However, as I can not determine what the future may hold, I reserve the right to discuss private issues in more private forums should the need arise. I don't know what those issues might be, and I can not currently conceive of any situation which might call for such private discussion, but I don't want to promise one thing and then run into a situation where I can not honor that promise. For any who may vehemently oppose any possibility of private discussions, please make special note of the bolded part of my response above. ···日本穣 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

5. 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. I regularly visit and participate on WP:RFA (though I haven't always !voted on every RfA), and I will definitely make time for the other two should I become a bureaucrat. ···日本穣 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Peter M Dodge:

1. Acting as a bureaucrat often means making controversial decisions in cases where consensus is not always clear. How do you approach such situations? How would you address the matter in such a way that all "sides" of the matter feel that they have been considered? How would you determine consensus in such a matter?

A. I think in such cases, the way the final decision statement is worded is very important. It's important to mention each major point raised by each "side", especially those points raised in objection as they are the ones most likely to need addressing and consideration in sticky situations. I think as long as I am respectful of all opinions on the matter, and show that I have carefully considered them (and perhaps discussed them with other bureaucrats, if needed), that while some may not agree with the final decision they will know that they were not simply ignored. ···日本穣 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

2. One of the activities of a bureaucrat is changing usernames upon request. Oftentimes this is a fairly clearcut activity, but sometimes it is not. Such is the case with username usurpations, when a user requests a change to a name that is already taken, but has made few or no edits. Assume for a moment that you must take action on such a request - how would you handle such a situation?

A. I would first carefully review Misplaced Pages:Usurpation to make sure I was current on everything regarding the policy. After reviewing the policy and any recent discussions on the issue, I would then consider the merits of the request and if they met the requirements for usurping the username of another editor. If they did, then the request would be granted. If not, it would be declined. ···日本穣 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Question from Majorly (talk · contribs):

3. Have you ever nominated someone to be an administrator? If so, who and why, and if not why not?

A. No, though I have a few people I've thought about nominating. I may even get to nominating them at some point. I just want to make sure I approach them in the right way about it. ···日本穣 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions from MatthewFenton:

4. Do you pledge never to promote a person you are affiliated with or to discuss their RfA with them in a bureaucratic sense? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A. I would never twiddle bits of someone with whom I was closely associated (for instance, anyone in WP:JAPAN). I think it's very important to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. As for discussing things with them, I'm not sure what you mean by "discuss their RfA with them in a bureaucratic sense." Any discussions would be be confined to their RfA or its talk page (I'd make a point of that), and would be there for anyone to see in order to maintain transparency. If the question was one I wasn't comfortable answering, I'd indicate as much instead of answering the question. If it was a question that could be seen as an attempt at influencing the outcome, I'd refer them to another bureaucrat or suggest they post their question on their RfA talk page for someone else to answer. ···日本穣 18:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Nihonjoe's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose I'm sorry, I do not see a need for any more bureaucrats at this time. Until there's an easier way to avoid events like yesterday's, I'd rather no more bureaucrats were made, and the current, inactive ones (that is, all except our most active Taxman, Redux and Essjay) were all reconfirmed as trusted by the community. --Majorly (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral