Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/99of9

Successful The support and community trust of 99of9 is clear, hence "promotion" is successful. russavia (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Links for candidate: 99of9 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Since Russavia has brought it to our attention that we are low on active Bureaucrats (even counting him... given that his application is going well), I have considered and decided to put my name forward as well. Apart from the bot-related decisions (in which I will not participate due to limited knowledge), I believe that I will be able to carry out the other aspects of this role. I have been on Commons since 2006, very actively since 2009, and as an admin since May 2010.

I follow Requests for Admin quite closely, often asking difficult (but mellow) questions, because it is important for our community to have Admins who set an example in contributions, knowledge, and attitude. Sometimes (e.g. this and this) this gets me personally involved in the nomination, and obviously I would not participate in the closure in those instances.

I've also become reasonably community-focused (as opposed to photographs which dominated my early contributions, and continue at a slower rate), which suits the Bureaucrat role. You can study my record of closing heated community disputes (in which I also try to remain even-handed), some recent examples are here here and here.

Feel free to ask difficult questions!

99of9 (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Excellent. --Foroa (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support and strongly - I was on the verge of dropping you a note :). Commons could do with a couple more active 'crats. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per Herby--Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Thought about suggesting this to 99of9. Now we just need someone trusted, familiar with bots, a lot of spare time and willingness to discuss. -- RE rillke questions? 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Strong support Very good user. --Katarighe (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. And Rillke: sounds like you're looking for The Doctor. --Quintucket (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't see any issues, support. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Per Herbythyme and Rillke. I was just thinking about you for this "job". Good luck in advance! Trijnstel (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per my standard thoughts on cratship; which is that every competent admin with some tenure should have it. Courcelles (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, good stuff all round. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Looks good to me. --MGA73 (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Yann (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support  ■ MMXX  ^talk 01:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Given past experiences, I can support 99of9. russavia (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I have had many good interactions with 99of9. I also like what I read below.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support mickit 14:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --AFBorchert (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC) in the hope that you stay active :)[reply]
•  Support Techman224^Talk 06:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per his statements below and my previous impression. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Obvious.  Hans 09:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Experienced and clueful user. No problems here. Jafeluv (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Excellent candidate - just the sort of level-headed and thoughtful contributor needed for the role. Rd232 (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Clueful editor. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Based on my experience is knowledgeable and trustworthy. --ELEKHH^T 15:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Krd (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Trusted and highly valued contributor. Bidgee (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Everything checks out. 99of9 will be a great bureaucrat. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 08:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question: What is your RFA philosophy? Are you willing to compromise with your fellow bureaucrats if elected?

• As I mentioned, for my own vote, what I look for in an applicant is attitude, contributions and knowledge, so that our Admins set an example. (For example I'm proud to have nominated George Chernilevsky). I think the RFA is the right time to examine a candidate's contributions and ask difficult questions, because nobody wants desysop requests down the track. Regarding closing RFA's, I won't participate in the closure if I'm significantly involved, but will if either I haven't participated, or if I've simply "voted" and there's a clear consensus. Regarding compromising with established Bureaucrats, I hope they will more than compromise with me, but also exercise their leadership and guidance roles, given that I'm the newcomer! --99of9 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• With regards to de-adminship, how would you approach them? In what way would you handle 1 and 2? What's your opinion on how it was handled? How was the approach in those cases? Was the request and the closing of those cases in accordance with our de-adminship policy?

• Generally de-sysops are divisive. As a community we need to work hard to avoid drama and infighting. Admins need to pay attention to good communication and community cooperation. De-sysop proposers need to examine their motives carefully and calmly before trying to pull the trigger. We need to keep strengthening our dispute resolution options before it gets to calling for blocks or de-sysops of good faith users. We need to remind ourselves to hold fast to mellowness, civility and AGF. We need to acknowledge one another's positive contributions to develop a supportive environment, so that when disagreements arise they can be dealt with in a friendly way. --99of9 (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Jcb's case was very sad for me, but in the end I think that procedures were more-or-less followed, and the bureaucrat's action and message were appropriate. It was sad because he was clearly a good faith contributor, and a very hard worker. Unfortunately he tended to view efficiency more highly than cooperation, and did not change this even in the face of genuine community complaints. I tried to gently warn him very early on, and again less gently in his first de-sysop discussion. I felt somewhat involved/conflicted by the time the second de-sysop came around, so did not participate. But everything I observed was roughly by-the-book. I did see attempts by a number of editors to engage in dispute resolution, and then to form a prior consensus for removal. I also think Cecil did a good job of summarizing the consensus, and taking the necessary steps, while recognizing the value of jcb's contributions and good faith. --99of9 (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I wasn't active during Gryffindor's, so I haven't seen all the related discussions, and haven't got time to follow all the links and track down the history now. It appears that a few people had noticed the same problem, and had attempted to discuss it with him, but were met with silence and revert-wars (including wheel-wars). Not good - there was a real problem. The consensus-building appears to have occurred on de-wp, which IMO would not be accepted by the Commons community today (maybe removal precedent was less developed in 2008?). The proposal process was not as bad as the two examples below, but was not good either. Pausing the vote and redirecting it to dispute resolution would have made sense, but IMO there was only a very limited time window for this... remove votes came in thick and fast, and it was clear that there were many editors with deep concerns (including many not from de-wp). Once it came to closing time, there was a strong majority for removal, and an obvious lost trust in Gryffindor's use of admin tools. I think the bureaucrats judged this consensus correctly, and rightly asked for removal of the rights, leaving open the possibility of restoring them once community trust was restored. I share your concerns about canvassing, but my reading is that the community will appeared clear in spite of that. --99of9 (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What's your opinion on 3 and 4? Were they handled and approached in accordance with COM:DESYSOP? Should other venues have been tried in any of those cases?

• Oh, I didn't realize you gave me some easy ones! Lar's was obviously out of process, in fact the de-nominator didn't seem to even read the process [1]. Not only did he not attempt to find prior consensus on Commons, he didn't have a single supporter put their name to it, and he didn't even discuss the issue with Lar! My preference would be for Bureaucrats to close early in such extreme situations, but I suppose letting it run like that served to demonstrate why we have the rules in the first place. --99of9 (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Kameraad Pjotr's also clearly lacked prior consensus, even though there were a couple of genuine concerns. Having gained minimal support, this was quite appropriately shut down early. --99of9 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What weight would you give to neutral votes? Are they of any importance in a final RFX closing?

• If elected, I would certainly consider neutral votes, after all they've gone to the trouble of expressing their opinion (and deliberately including a "vote" template rather than a comment alone), and it is probably a nuanced opinion (which often means it has been well thought out). Numerically I would count them as a neutral: not as a support, nor as an oppose. In the case of RFA's, successful candidacy "normally requires at least 75% in favour", and I take that to be 75% of the total vote. So for me, someone who achieved 8 support, 2 oppose, and 99 neutral would not be promoted according to the current wording. If there's disagreement about this, I think the wording at COM:A should be clarified, rather than trying to debate the meaning of neutral. --99of9 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should work toward that change or clarification. I agree with you on the interpretation of the wording, but it leads to the result that a neutral vote is effectively a negative vote -- a person with 15 positive votes and 6 neutral votes would not be promoted because 15/21 < 75%. We need to make that very clear to voters.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you or others aren't aware, there's a current discussion on this at Commons_talk:Requests_and_votes#Comment_on_election_analysis. Rd232 (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your answers. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I think will be good idea to extend voting for a week, to get more participants. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. While there is lots of support for the candidate, there aren't as many people commenting as I'd like to see on an RfB. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps someone could put a note on my talk page to alert those who watch me? --99of9 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It was agreed way back that higher level rights such as CU & OS should be advertised on the VP and Admin board. I guess it might be good to do the same with RfBs (if that wasn't agreed at the time)? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mind if or where it's advertised, I have nothing to hide. I would just prefer not to do it myself to ensure that it is not considered canvassing. --99of9 (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be. For one thing, I wouldn't have missed the very recent Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia! It's also not obvious not obvious from COM:Bureaucrat how to watch the subpage in order to get new requests appear on your watchlist; I think I'll knock up a template for that when I have a minute, to make it clear and easy. Rd232 (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. A while ago I figured out how to watch all of these request pages to ensure nothing slipped past me :). Feel free to advertise it on the boards. --99of9 (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rd232 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: AFBorchert: I expect to remain active. Real life is nearing its busiest, but Commons is good enough to remain part of my life! --99of9 (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question: COM:BCRAT says Bureaucrats are expected be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues. Do you have any experience in this sort of area you can point to? Rd232 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was reasonably involved in the planning for POTY-2010.
• I gently "led" some of the controversial FP listing rules changes. It might not be obvious how my influence played out, but for a taste here are some of my actions to examine:

• note my steering of the process [2][3][4]
• open group A option 3 to see what a little empirical evidence does for a discussion.
• note that I proposed the compromise option that eventually got up regarding nomination rate.

• You did say "major" and "policy", so I suppose I had better mention that I was quite involved (along with many others) in beating out the compromise and wording for the mother of all Commons policy polls. The preliminary discussions lasted months, so I won't go through them in detail! In brief I argued strongly in favour of requiring an assertion of the consent of the subject for this type of image. (On reflection the vote went down primarily for a different reason (speedy out-of-scope deletions), so we should have split the new proposals somehow). Some of you may disagree with my stance on this, but obviously I still close fairly when the community will doesn't match mine.

--99of9 (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer, thank you. I would ask you about bot decisions as well, as the other major area not discussed, but you've said you won't do those due to limited knowledge, so I won't. Rd232 (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]