Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rdsmith4

Rdsmith4

final (6/5/1) ending 04:39 26 November 2004 (GMT)

I've been a Wikipedian since April 2004 and a sysop since the beginning of October. I have, I believe, gained the trust of the Wikipedia community, and I am quite willing to assist in further administrative duties. Thus, I submit my request for bureaucratship. — Dan | Talk 04:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Support

1. Seems like a strong admin. Andre (talk) 19:48, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
2. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
3. Brilliant user - there is no reason to oppose. ugen64 21:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. Cribcage 05:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. Happy to support. - RedWordSmith 05:29, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
6. Yes. Seems like a good, strong person for this job. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 23:18, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Lo siento, amigo – you don't meet my personal standards. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 17:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. I am afraid that I must oppose new bureaucratships at the moment, in the light of the argument over what standards potential bureaucrats should express on how they would handle their responsibilities and how bureaucrats should be nominated. When I and several others became bureaucrats, it was in response to an explicit request from Angela because people were not being promoted for days because many then-bureaucrats were simply not watching RfA. I expressed in detail how I viewed the position and the standards I would use pro, con, and resolving difficult cases. Perhaps we need to treat bureaucrat a little like ArbCom, state a number of positions we need when we need them, have editors run for those positions for a limited term (ArbCom is 3 years) and have the top candidates fill the required slots. If we have no standards, then we might as well make everyone an admin who asks for it, and just have bureaucrats push the button. I explicitly apologize to Rdsmith for being in the middle of this. Nothing personal to him. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Respectfully oppose. First, there's no need for more bureaucrats. It's a very limited job and the handful we have are doing it. Second, I think bureaucrats should be "pillars of the community": editors who are well-respected and known by virtually everyone. This is a practical matter: if everyone knows who a bureaucrat is, they're less likely to second-guess an adminship decision. Rdsmith4 is a good editor as far as I know, but not at that level. Nothing personal. Isomorphic 03:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. There's no need for new bureaucrats; also, you have been a sysop for just under two months, which, I believe, is not enough time for you to request bureaucratship. Lst27 (talk) 02:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. Username doesn't match signature. Gdr 23:42, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

   Lots of Wikipedians make sigs that don't match their usernames. Just click through to see who they "really" are. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   I understand that. But in practice I don't click on everyone's signature to see their username. (Do you?) For most users that doesn't matter. But it is my opinion that bureaucrats should be beyond reproach in this as well as other ways. Pqr 11:17, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

   On most half-decent browsers, mousing over their nickname "reveals" their real username. ugen64 21:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Would support, but I don't believe we need new bureaucrats right now. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:31, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Comments

• Nearly every objection states, "We have enough bureaucrats." I'd be interested to learn what problem would be caused by having "too many bureaucrats." Cribcage 03:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• That's an interesting question, so I posted it at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Too_many_bureaucrats.3F. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Q1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A1.

Q2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A2.