Wikiquote:Request for bureaucrat/BD2412
From Wikiquote
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The result was: Successful application.
I, BD2412 (talk · contributions), hereby nominate myself for bureaucratship. In light of Jusjih's resignation from CheckUser status, I have thought to seek appointment to that position. Since CU requests are occasionally tied into adminship bids, it makes sense that a CU should be a 'crat, so I am requesting both. I believe my level of activity on this project should be well-known to anyone who might vote here, so I won't belabor the statistics. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that this is a separate discussion from my CU request. Thanks. BD2412 T 17:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]- Support. I believe that BD2412 has been a strong contributor to the project and would responsibly use the available tools in this new role. I also agree with the arguments he/she has made below against Cirt's points regarding the recent discussions on Kalki's admin vote. I do not believe that the opinions expressed should disqualify him/her from this position. As was pointed out, the established rules are not what they could be - perhaps they should be strengthened and such discussions would not have taken place if that were the case. But as things currently stand, I do not believe that the expression of support for Kalki as an admin should result in negative repercussions here. I actually initially supported Kalki, but changed my vote after continued discussion. Does this mean that Cirt wishes me to resign my positions as well? If this is the case, fine, but I'm not sure the rationale for doing so is sound. I believe that BD2412 made a correct argument is separating a community discussion, in which all actions by a user were weighed (not just the specific sockpuppet behavior), versus actions required by a Bureaucrat in enforcing established policies (and as mentioned the policies in this are are not as clear as they could be). In the end, I believe that BD2412 could do much to help the project in this role and I therefore support this request. ~ UDScott 17:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. BD2412 has been one of the major contributors to this project, and though we have disagreed strongly on some issues, I recognize this person as fair and honest in stating assessments, even such opinions as must be opposed to my own. I truly sorrow that principled partial support of me in situations where somehat unprincipled distortions and manipulations of the opinions and prejudices of those who might have some reasonably principled presumptions against me has generated any opposition at all to this nomination. There is much more I might say on this and other matters, but for now I simply support this nomination of a person who has exhibited what I consider to be a fair and judicious examination of many matters, even where we must disagree. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have no doubt of BD2412's ability to use account maintenance tools effectively. It will be good to have another person to service WQ:CHU, which tends to receive very slow response. I have every confidence that he will respect community consensus in closing discussions that call for the use of these tools. (The role of Bureaucrat is not highly restricted because it requires extraordinary powers of discernment, it doesn't, but because the tools could wreak havoc in the hands of a malicious person, which BD2412 isn't.) Contrary to Cirt's interpretation of events, I believe trustworthiness is demonstrated by respecting the consensus when one has expressed a minority view. There is no special reason to trust that someone who has never been in the minority will respect the majority when the situation is different. I have participated in very many discussions with BD2412, and have never known him to disrespect a consensus with which he disagreed. ~ Ningauble 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An active bureaucrat is highly beneficial for the project, specially for the sake of WQ:CHU, and BD2412 is fairly active and has shown his discretion both in using his admin tool and in discussion, even if I disagree with him on some issues. --Aphaia 16:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The project certainly needs active bureaucrats, and I think BD2412 does good work in general as an admin and is active, so they will do well. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cbrown1023 talk 00:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]- Oppose. BD2412 supported a confirmed sockmaster, Kalki, with over 200 sockpuppets "without reservation" for admin. diff, diff. Even after being blocked indefinitely for socking on multiple projects, Kalki openly continues to utilize sock accounts on other Wikimedia Foundation projects: "I have used many account names here in the past, and continue to do so elsewhere..." BD2412 is an inappropriate candidate for Bureaucrat, because sockmasters with over 200 plus socks, who continue to sock on Wikimedia Foundation projects after being indefinitely blocked should not be promoted to admin, and that is poor judgment by BD2412. BD2412 is an inappropriate candidate for Checkuser, because he cannot be expected to perform neutrally and without bias towards a sockmaster with over 200 socks who continues to operate socks across multiple WMF projects — and this demonstrates severe judgment problems. -- Cirt (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your concern, but this boils down to a difference of opinion that is really irrelevant to my ability to be unbiased. As a bureaucrat, I would have closed Kalki's bid for adminship as a failure, just as I have closed closed requests for deletion that I have personally disagreed with in accordance with community consensus running in the other direction. I have also indicated to you before that I would support you in an effort to change the rules to bar candidates from adminship who are shown to have undisclosed sockpuppets, since the rules do not presently impose such a bar. I would hope that you would gauge my ability to perform the functions of a bureaucrat on my unbiased execution of administrative tasks, as opposed to my expression of personal opinion in a community discussion, which has never affected the way that I carry out my responsibilities to the community. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kalki does not just have one or two "undisclosed sockpuppets", for years he had over 200 on this project. He admitted he still socks on other projects. He was blocked indefinitely for socking on multiple other Wikimedia Foundation projects. And yet you wanted him to be an admin. This bodes very dangerous for giving the Checkuser tools to this candidate. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you that as a Checkuser, I will diligently investigate and report any sockpuppet activity I uncover, irrespective of whether I personally believe that the user in question is using such accounts in a way that violates project policies. Again, if you believe additional restrictions on the use of multiple accounts should be part of this project, I'll support you on that. If we had a rule saying that sockpuppetry by itself disqualified candidates from adminship, I'd have voted against Kalki's bid on that basis. BD2412 T 16:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your words are nice, but your actions (or inaction rather) towards a proven and confirmed sockmaster speak otherwise. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My inaction? Do you think I should have blocked Kalki? I'm not sure what action I was supposed to take but did not. Also, please do not combine this discussion with the Checkuser discussion as you did here. These are two separate inquiries. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am frankly amazed that the extremely foul distortions of fact — and intentions at GENERATING of foul-seeming "facts" and fouler rules based upon Cirt's personal will and apparent ambitions have not at this point become far more evident to people than they are. Cirt states that I "was blocked indefinitely for socking on multiple other Wikimedia Foundation projects" — this deplorable event occured at Cirt's instigation and accusations, during his rampage of defamation of me months ago — where, as recently, Cirt blocked my IPs in ways that prevented me from from posting ANY objections on my primary computers. I chose not to respond to some of these since then, simply because I have had far more important matters to attend to than what I expect will be a VERY complicated and contentious situation. I have stated or implied that I DO intend to openly expose and confront some of the abuses I perceive have been occurring in recent years on the wikimedia projects, which I hold still REMAIN primarily honorable enterprises, despite the fact that strong elements of extremely corruptive and corrupted cliques of some of those most active in devising and enforcing rules often gain greater influences, prestige and power than those most interested in simply contributing to the project in largely obscure, anonymous and unimpressive ways. This is to some extent natural, and I don't resent people for many of their flaws, but must oppose those who make some of the foulest efforts to undemine and diminish the virtues of others. I have long noted that some of those who I consider the very worst influences often seem very willing and eager to denigrate, defame and deride those who actually do the most constructive work. I am certainly NOT saying the honorable foundation or the wikis have been "taken over by a cabal" — as some have implied — I am saying that there are strong elements of EXTREMELY corruptive hostility to such independence from top-down directives as actually FOUNDED the wikis, and I consider this extremely unfortunate. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
- Both of you: if this is going to continue, I would rather this be discussed elsewhere. Thank you. BD2412 T 20:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am frankly amazed that the extremely foul distortions of fact — and intentions at GENERATING of foul-seeming "facts" and fouler rules based upon Cirt's personal will and apparent ambitions have not at this point become far more evident to people than they are. Cirt states that I "was blocked indefinitely for socking on multiple other Wikimedia Foundation projects" — this deplorable event occured at Cirt's instigation and accusations, during his rampage of defamation of me months ago — where, as recently, Cirt blocked my IPs in ways that prevented me from from posting ANY objections on my primary computers. I chose not to respond to some of these since then, simply because I have had far more important matters to attend to than what I expect will be a VERY complicated and contentious situation. I have stated or implied that I DO intend to openly expose and confront some of the abuses I perceive have been occurring in recent years on the wikimedia projects, which I hold still REMAIN primarily honorable enterprises, despite the fact that strong elements of extremely corruptive and corrupted cliques of some of those most active in devising and enforcing rules often gain greater influences, prestige and power than those most interested in simply contributing to the project in largely obscure, anonymous and unimpressive ways. This is to some extent natural, and I don't resent people for many of their flaws, but must oppose those who make some of the foulest efforts to undemine and diminish the virtues of others. I have long noted that some of those who I consider the very worst influences often seem very willing and eager to denigrate, defame and deride those who actually do the most constructive work. I am certainly NOT saying the honorable foundation or the wikis have been "taken over by a cabal" — as some have implied — I am saying that there are strong elements of EXTREMELY corruptive hostility to such independence from top-down directives as actually FOUNDED the wikis, and I consider this extremely unfortunate. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
- My inaction? Do you think I should have blocked Kalki? I'm not sure what action I was supposed to take but did not. Also, please do not combine this discussion with the Checkuser discussion as you did here. These are two separate inquiries. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your words are nice, but your actions (or inaction rather) towards a proven and confirmed sockmaster speak otherwise. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you that as a Checkuser, I will diligently investigate and report any sockpuppet activity I uncover, irrespective of whether I personally believe that the user in question is using such accounts in a way that violates project policies. Again, if you believe additional restrictions on the use of multiple accounts should be part of this project, I'll support you on that. If we had a rule saying that sockpuppetry by itself disqualified candidates from adminship, I'd have voted against Kalki's bid on that basis. BD2412 T 16:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kalki does not just have one or two "undisclosed sockpuppets", for years he had over 200 on this project. He admitted he still socks on other projects. He was blocked indefinitely for socking on multiple other Wikimedia Foundation projects. And yet you wanted him to be an admin. This bodes very dangerous for giving the Checkuser tools to this candidate. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your concern, but this boils down to a difference of opinion that is really irrelevant to my ability to be unbiased. As a bureaucrat, I would have closed Kalki's bid for adminship as a failure, just as I have closed closed requests for deletion that I have personally disagreed with in accordance with community consensus running in the other direction. I have also indicated to you before that I would support you in an effort to change the rules to bar candidates from adminship who are shown to have undisclosed sockpuppets, since the rules do not presently impose such a bar. I would hope that you would gauge my ability to perform the functions of a bureaucrat on my unbiased execution of administrative tasks, as opposed to my expression of personal opinion in a community discussion, which has never affected the way that I carry out my responsibilities to the community. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]- Comment I would like to challenge the statement "Since CU requests are occasionally tied into adminship bids, it makes sense that a CU should be a 'crat, so I am requesting both." How does it make sense? Please explain what could otherwise be seen as a glib statement. One could make the reverse argument with the same glib statement that keeping them separate makes sense. In fact I feel that it could be more evident that a separation of the duties if at all possible is well worthwhile when considering the restrictions on the how and when to use CUtools, and how that gives a better level of protection for both parties. Billinghurst 12:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, come to think of it, the most immediate correlation between the positions arises not with an adminship bid, but with someone using sockpuppets to misuse admin powers, for example by rigging discussions with sockpuppets and then closing them as an admin, or by unprotecting protected articles as an admin and then vandalizing the unprotected pages from another account. Obviously, where such activity is discovered by a CU, the community would want the vandalizing admin's powers to be suspended as quickly as possible, so ideally a CU who discovers such activities would also have the 'crat power necessary to de-admin the offender until the community could decide how to proceed. As for the utility of these powers in adminship bids, I can give you an example by way of comparison with AfD's I have closed on Wikipedia. When closing a contentious AfD, the closing admin sometimes discovers shenanigans going on in the votes, such as users or anons changing the votes of others users, voting multiple times with false signatures, and so forth. Similarly, if an adminship bid appears to include suspicious patterns of behavior by participants in the discussion, a person who had both CU and 'crat powers could initiate an investigation into possible sockpuppet activity among participants in the discussion, and then take this into account in determining whether an actual consensus exists and closing the discussion accordingly. BD2412 T 16:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, bureaucrats do not de-admin. Have you reviewed the definition of the role here and at Meta? ~ Ningauble 16:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not well enough - I probably had Wiktionary in mind, where 'crats have de-admined several Wonderfool sockpuppets that had managed to get adminships. I had thought about volunteering for the position there a few years ago, but there was never a pressing need for candidates. I am actually somewhat surprised that 'crats can not de-admin here, since the worst-case scenario of an admin vandalizing (directly or through sockpuppets) would require swift action. It would be prudent for me to take a few days to more thoroughly examine the actions of 'crats on this project, however. BD2412 T 18:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In a worst-case emergency, anyone can ask a Steward to intervene. ~ Ningauble 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the chances of a Steward being available in a pinch are just as good as the chances of a 'crat on the project being available. To be honest, I don't think I've ever needed to call on a Steward, as I have never personally caught an admin vandalizing. BD2412 T 19:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In a worst-case emergency, anyone can ask a Steward to intervene. ~ Ningauble 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not well enough - I probably had Wiktionary in mind, where 'crats have de-admined several Wonderfool sockpuppets that had managed to get adminships. I had thought about volunteering for the position there a few years ago, but there was never a pressing need for candidates. I am actually somewhat surprised that 'crats can not de-admin here, since the worst-case scenario of an admin vandalizing (directly or through sockpuppets) would require swift action. It would be prudent for me to take a few days to more thoroughly examine the actions of 'crats on this project, however. BD2412 T 18:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, bureaucrats do not de-admin. Have you reviewed the definition of the role here and at Meta? ~ Ningauble 16:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, come to think of it, the most immediate correlation between the positions arises not with an adminship bid, but with someone using sockpuppets to misuse admin powers, for example by rigging discussions with sockpuppets and then closing them as an admin, or by unprotecting protected articles as an admin and then vandalizing the unprotected pages from another account. Obviously, where such activity is discovered by a CU, the community would want the vandalizing admin's powers to be suspended as quickly as possible, so ideally a CU who discovers such activities would also have the 'crat power necessary to de-admin the offender until the community could decide how to proceed. As for the utility of these powers in adminship bids, I can give you an example by way of comparison with AfD's I have closed on Wikipedia. When closing a contentious AfD, the closing admin sometimes discovers shenanigans going on in the votes, such as users or anons changing the votes of others users, voting multiple times with false signatures, and so forth. Similarly, if an adminship bid appears to include suspicious patterns of behavior by participants in the discussion, a person who had both CU and 'crat powers could initiate an investigation into possible sockpuppet activity among participants in the discussion, and then take this into account in determining whether an actual consensus exists and closing the discussion accordingly. BD2412 T 16:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I skipped your words at the first glance "Since CU requests are occasionally tied into adminship bids, it makes sense that a CU should be a 'crat, so I am requesting both. " That is an idea what I've never thought. Did you mean then you could de-admin with bureaucratship? Then, now that you know you misunderstood, do you request still for this flag too? --Aphaia 17:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do continue to request both. My thought in seeking both was that someone serving as both a CU and a 'crat could address concerns either that an admin candidate was engaged in sockpuppetry, or that other participants in an adminship discussion were using sockpuppets to affect the outcome of the discussion. I do recognize the concerns raised about the same person performing 'crat and CU functions in the course of the same discussion. If the community feels that this represents a conflict of interest, I would avoid doing so, just as I avoid closing deletion debates that I have initiated unless consensus is unquestionably clear. However, the fact that I am an admin and am able to close deletion discussions does not prevent me from nominating bad articles for deletion, and having both the CU and 'crat roles would similarly enable me to serve as a CU when one was needed, and as a 'crat when one was needed in a separate process. I think we have demonstrated a need for more 'crats, and for more CUs, and I am willing to do both. I am also of the philosophy that these roles are no more than additional opportunities to volunteer and take on additional work for the good of the project, albeit using tools that require greater discretion and the trust of the community. Anyone who is trusted not to misuse the CU powers would need to be someone who could be trusted not to misuse 'crat powers anyway. BD2412 T 18:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 is now a bureaucrat.
This request has got both 6 supports and 1 opposition. Even if I reduce my own support for avoiding conflict of interest, it would remain 5 supports against 1 opposition. I read it as a a rough consensus for BD2412's promotion, and therefore close this request as successful. --Aphaia 20:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.