Andrevan

Final (50/10/1) ending 02:27 September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Andrevan ( talk · contribs)

Last time I put myself up as a potential bureaucrat, over 9 months ago, consensus was, Wikipedia does not need to enlarge the bureaucrat pool. Though my nomination failed, I think the aftermath (which you can read in the Talk:RfA history somewhere) enhanced my understanding of the thin line between a failed nomination and a successful one.

Anyway, here I am again. What has changed? Well, aside from the personal growth that a person such as myself can experience in 9 months, there has been a MediaWiki upgrade. Bureaucrats don't just end RfAs anymore - now they handle Wikipedia:Changing username as well! Apparently there can be seen a fair number of requests there now that have not yet been fulfilled. I think I could help out with that, and maybe do some RfAs when the other bureaucrats are busy. I believe that adminship isn't a big deal; bureaucratship even less so.

Here's my old nomination. Thanks! Andre ( talk) 02:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I know this nomination is just getting started, but I just wanted to say a huge "thank you!" for all the kind words on this page. You flatter me. Andre ( talk) 17:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Given his history of successful dispute mediation and successful adminship, Andre's a fine choice for overseeing a consensus and as such, dealing with the overflow of RfAs--which may or may not exist. D. G. 02:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Support Yes. Consise answers too Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C}
3. Support Although Cecropia seems to be doing most of the RfA stuff (I'm helping too ;)), we seem to have a backlog of name change requests. In other words, why not? You're a good editor and admin too, so I'm sure it'll work out. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
4. No reason not to have another few bureaucrats. Andrevan's a trusted editor and is very deserving of the honor. — Dan | Talk 02:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Support Seems like a good admin deserving of bureaucratship, and he has been here long enough to know the ropes. Amren ^(talk) 03:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Strong support. Absolutely. Great guy, and great administrator. Frankly, I think people who say "we don't need more bureaucrats" are unoriginal. Who cares? If the person is worthy, then I say give it to him or her. Andre is fully suited to the job of bureaucrat. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
7. Strong Support The best answers to any questions on a RfA or RfB. Unequivocal support from this user, who is: Bratsche ^{talk 5 pillars} 03:15, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Worthy. I have a lot of trust in him. I think we need a couple more; we keep growing. Antandrus (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Support. A fine contributor and admin. Thunderbrand 03:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. An enormously responsible, intelligent, reasonable, and dedicated person who can only do more good for Wikipedia the more options are made available to him. It is not he who has to live up to this responsibility, it is this responsibility that has to prove it is worthy of him. (... Whatever that means.) - Silence 03:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Support, Responsible and trustworthy. K1Bond007 03:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
12. Strong support Everything has been said, I only regret that I can only vote once. Tony the Marine 04:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
13. Support He does what needs to be done in a professional manner, notices what needs to be done, AND when it does get done. Comic 04:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Support. My full support, worthy. Func( t, c, @,  ) 05:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
15. Support. Andre is a good person and a highly competent administrator and editor; I believe he is more than capable of being an excellent bureaucrat as well. A fine Wikipedian. αγδεε ( ε τ c) 07:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Support. whee - my first ever Bureaucrat-support vote! One of the few I would vote yes for as Bureaucrat, too. Grutness... wha? 07:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Support I need not repeat the above reasons (responsible, reasonable, etc.). Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 14:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC). reply
18. Support. I've found Andre to be a level-headed decent guy, and I believe there's no reason to make such a big fuss about these things. I can't remember if I asked to be notified, but I'm grateful I was. Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
19. Nothing but positive experiences. El_C 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
20. Support. Capable admin. - Willmcw 18:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. WAS 4.250 18:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
22. Support. No reason to oppose. Adraeus 19:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
23. Moderately strong Support. I wasn't quite sure about the picky answer, so I questioned Andrevan with a fairly difficult hypothetical situation on irc. He gets an A ;-) -- Kim Bruning 19:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
24. Support. I'm satisfied. Kelly Martin 19:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
25. Support! - I think those comments on those oppose votes is enough -- Phroziac ^{( talk)} 21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
26. Support Andre is an extremely responsible person who I'm happy to call my friend. I know the time and effort he puts into helping to make wikipedia such a great place, and he deserves this. Zchangu 21:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
27. Support Would make a great bureaucrat Tuf-Kat 22:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
28. Obviously. Neutrality ^talk 00:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. I trust him to handle the position with good judgment. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
30. Merovingian (t) (c) 02:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
32. Support. Great admin. Very worthy contributor. Full support. Jacoplane 16:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
33. Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
34. Strong support I was debating not voting so *someone* would be neutral enough to close it, but I couldn't let such a great editor pass by without my vote. Pak aran 21:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply
35. Support- great editor, would make fine bureaucrat. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply
36. Support. We need some more bureaucrats, and you're a great candidate. ral 315 05:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. JuntungWu 12:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
38. Support. Regarding the two issues raised below, I believe the campaigning was done in good taste, addressing people who are familiar with Andre's work. The alleged "newbie biting" was, in this case, just what was needed. Owen× ☎ 16:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
39. Support - you are met by my standards. I've seen yu around and liked what I've seen. -- Celestianpower ^{hab | myRFA} 23:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
40. Support. Great Wikipedian. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
41. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:45, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
42. Apoyo! A great wikipedian.....and if you don't know what "apoyo" means in Spanish,, then look at the list under which Im putting my vote and you will...:) hehe! Antonio shaken, not stirred Martin 12:31, August 31, 2005(UTC)
43. James F. (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
44. Enjoy your bureaucracy! Ingoolemo  ^talk 20:16, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
45. Support He has proved himself to have sound judgement, and will be a competent and useful bureaucrat. Giano | talk 06:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
46. Support. I suppose I should eventually list my standards somewhere in my userspace, but in any case he meets them. -- Alan Au 09:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
47. Support. No reason to oppose. -- user:zanimum
48. Support -- Saluyot 01:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. -- Lst27 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
50. Support. Sam Hocevar 16:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose. Andre, I don't know you well, so maybe today is an aberration, but in the last few hours you have done two things that I find distasteful: newbie biting [1] and ballot stuffing [2]. I feel somewhat bad in opposing, because I think you probably are a pretty good guy, but I also think we ought to expect the highest standards of behavior from bureaucrats. Dragons flight 04:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

   While I appreciate your feedback, I respectfully don't feel that I was doing either. My vote on that RfA was merely a statement of fact, and was not intended to be mean in any way. I welcome many new users and answer many new user questions, and always do so in accordance with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. As for ballot stuffing, if you'll take a look at User:Andrevan/Archive4 you can see that many of those who voted on my previous nomination requested to be notified when I ran again. I extended this notification to some others who have interacted with me more recently. Andre ( talk) 04:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

   I count 5 people asking to be notified on that page (plus one for Func below). You informed them and 14 others plus one wiki project. Had you posted a big flashing banner on your user page, I wouldn't have objected. If you had campaigned at the Village Pump, I would have thought that overkill (and a little silly), but of no real harm. Instead your actions have the appearance of rounding up your friends in order to get yourself elected, and I strongly believe no part of Wikipedia should boil down to that kind of popularity contest. If you did not intend this to be the effect of your actions, then I am sorry, but again I believe in high standards here. On the other issue. A 4 day old newbie has no credible place as an RFA, you know this. You could have removed the RFA and nicely explained to the newbie what was wrong, like I did. Instead you chose to be strongly critical, without so much as an example of how he ought to behave. To your credit, after going through the last 45 days of your User talk edits, I do see a half dozen or more newbie welcomes, but I am still left to wonder why you were so blunt with a clearly inappropriate RFA. I will think about this more, but right now my vote stays oppose. Dragons flight 05:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

   Regarding the notifications, I really don't have anything else to add; I informed users who had explicitly expressed interest in voting and other users who I thought would be interested. Make of that what you will. As for the RfA, when I investigate potential admins I do so in a certain order, and when I encounter something that disqualifies I cease investigating. Essentially, I only got as far as the questions and the edit count, and then voted Oppose. I did not read that much into it, and, as far as I know, I did not say anything inflammatory; I merely voted as I do on many RfAs. In my experience, newbie-biting usually takes the form of a nasty remark, often accompanied by a personal attack. I merely stated the facts, and no harm was meant by my vote. Anyway, I respect your opinion and your feedback. Andre ( talk) 05:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

   What you're referring to is not ballot stuffing, it's campaigning. And the second instance is hardly what I'd call "newbie biting," either, considering that everything he said was true and he didn't say anything particularly insulting. At worst, he didn't go out of his way to randomly compliment the guy. But, that's just how I see it; if you find what he did that unappetizing... It just seems trivial compared to all the months of fantastic work. - Silence 04:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply

   I would just like to interject that I recently told Andrevan that I would support a new bureaucrat nomination for him if he were still interested, so his bringing the nom to my attention was entirely appropriate and appreciated. Func( t, c, @,  ) 05:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply

   I think maybe Andrevan bit that newbie just a little, but it's no big deal, and won't affect my vote. Remember, blunt comments can sound very rude over the internet to people, since there isn't much for non-verbal communication. And, I see no problem with a little campaign. Had he gone through Special:Listusers with a bot (or without, if he wanted to follow policy on WP:BOT!), and spammed everyone on wikipedia about it, I would oppose. Or even anything anywhere near that! -- Phroziac ^{( talk)} 21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply

2. Oppose While you have everything else going for you, you don't usually include explanations when you vote on RfAs, especially when it comes to opposing. (See Casito's nomination). It would be one thing if 10 people opposed because it would be assumed that you opposed for the same reasons. But in Casito's nomination, you were the first person to oppose, and you didn't give Casito any idea why. RfAs are about consensus. Consensus doesn't just mean having 80% of the support votes. It means having a common idea of a person's capabilities. You provided no opinion on how that person would do as an administrator. Bureaucrats sometimes have to make difficult calls in close nominations. If you can't explain your reasoning, you might not be ready for bureaucratship. Acetic Acid 08:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

   When I don't explain my RfA votes, and I'm not just agreeing with everyone else, it's because I don't want to offend anyone. I do have reasoning, but I can't think of a way to phrase it non-offensively. This was the case with Casito's nomination. I can certainly understand that you would oppose because of this, though, and I appreciate that you took the time to explain it! Andre ( talk) 17:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

   Somewhat agree, but I don't think that's a reason to deny him bureaucratship! -- Phroziac ^{( talk)} 21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply

   But what happens if a nomination is a really close call? Your decision could offend not just one, but a lot of people. If you give a good reason, it will lessen the blow. And Phroziac, less than 10% of the voters are opposing him. I doubt he won't be promoted. Acetic Acid ( talk) 14:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

   The difference is, as a bureaucrat, I am merely interpreting others' views, and as such am not responsible for offending. When I vote on an RfA, I am bringing my own opinion to the table. Andre ( talk) 17:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

   But think about a really close RFA, like Lucky 6.9's. The comments on the RFA discussion page are still fresh. Bureaucrats began second-guessing each other and changing each others' decisions. Whenever someone made a decision, they followed it up with a thorough explanation. Would you be capable of doing that as a bureaucrat? Acetic ' ^Acid 09:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

   Of course. Bureaucrats don't express their own opinions, they interpret the opinions of the community. That is not something I have trouble doing. Andre ( talk) 18:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

   Also, please note that I was not the only Oppose on Requests for adminship/Casito. Andre ( talk) 02:27, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   But you were the first to oppose. As I mentioned above, if there were six or seven oppose votes before yours, and they explained their reasoning, it would be assumed that you are opposing for the same reasons that they are. But as the first, you should have said why Casito wasn't worthy. I respect the fact that you wish to remain civil, but it's only fair that the candidate understands why Andre doesn't want them to become an admin. Would you mind explaining here why you opposed Casito? If Casito reads this, please take no offense from Andre's reply. I want Andre to be completely honest. Acetic ' ^Acid 10:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   OK. I had a less than flattering opinion of Casito because of the Pope chart formerly on his user page [3], the way he endorsed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dai Grepher, and the trollish nominator, User:Wiki brah. It seemed to me based on these and my further examination of messages Casito had left on talk pages that he was a somewhat pompous and foolish individual. Sorry, Casito - I've attempted to word this explanation as gingerly as possible. Andre ( talk) 18:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose; while I'm sure Andrevan is a solid admin and contributor, I'm sorry say that I haven't seen or heard much of him. The only thing that comes to mind is his "Defending the Status Quo" proposal, which I found not particularly impressive. I'm familiar with at least half of the adminship candidates, so I'm reasonably sure that I know quite a lot of Wikipedians. So for bureaucratship, I wouldn't support one that I don't know. R adiant _>|< 10:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

   Yeah, that wasn't my best work. Andre ( talk) 17:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

4. Posting solicitations for votes to specific users is liable to skew the vote into something not representative of community opinion. I'd be happy to support a next RfB, I'm sure plenty of people will vote without notification. -- fvw * 02:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose, pimping for votes is not conduct becoming of an admin, let alone a bureaucrat. Proto  t  c 09:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose. I am concerned because I am not convinced that Andre will maintain appropriate judgement in the face of difficult decisions. I have seen little of his activity, so I recognise that my opinion may be unfair, but his recent explanation of unexplained oppose votes tips my uncomfortable neutrality into opposition. Bureaucratship is high-profile decision-making. Andre appears to recognise that he cannot always explain the unpalatable without being offensive: This is not what I seek in a bureaucrat. — Theo (Talk) 16:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply

   I'd like to clarify this a little bit. It's not that I can't explain the unpalatable, it's that my unexpressed opinions on certain RfAs are inherently offensive, e.g. "This user acts like an idiot," and so on. I would never say that to someone's face, and as such I would never say it in an RfA. I value respect and civility. That is not at all analogous to gauging consensus in the face of a difficult decision and breaking it to the user in question, which I have no problem doing. Andre ( talk) 18:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

   Are you saying that the only way to explain oppose votes is to offend someone? You could simply say, "not enough experience," "too few edits," or "user is uncivil." And so forth. English (as well as other languages) are broad enough to allow you to explain the same thing different ways using different words. Acetic ' ^Acid 20:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

   I do explain many oppose votes in that fashion. However, when a user hasn't done anything specific, and my only grounds for opposing are insulting, I merely list my name in the oppose column. If I give any more specific examples I run the risk of offending users who I have opposed without reasoning. Andre ( talk) 20:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

   Why not just link a few diffs and say the user should pay more attention to WP:CIV? Not a nice thing to hear, but a lot better than an unexplained oppose. -- fvw * 00:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   I think you misunderstand. In the occasion of a user where I can find nothing specific wrong, no violations of policy, but I nonetheless feel the user is in some way not fit for adminship, and my reason for thinking this is one that the user would find insulting and/or offensive (ex. the user says stupid or inane things), I will oppose without a reason. This is in no way related to what I would do as a bureaucrat. Andre ( talk) 00:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   There's more than being a good wikipedia editor than just following all the rules though. The proper temperament with handling new users is required too, and you can follow all the rules and still have bad style of interaction with others. There's no harm in indicating that, I seem to recall that was one of the reasons for opposition against my first RfA. -- fvw * 01:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   But there have in the past been users who have been fine in every respect, except they just rubbed me the wrong way with some of the things they said and did. I do not feel comfortable with these people as admins, but they haven't done anything wrong, per se. Andre ( talk) 01:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   If someone is fine in every way but comments they make rub you the wrong way you shouldn't be opposing them. We all have things that annoy us, but that's not a valid reason for opposing such a person's adminship. -- fvw * 01:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   It most certainly is valid! If comments made by an editor suggest to me that the editor is an idiot, that is a valid reason to oppose. I would not state that as a reason though: it is inherently offensive. Andre ( talk) 01:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   If you have reason to doubt the editor's soundness of judgement there's nothing wrong with saying that though. NPA should never prevent you from saying something relevant to the discussion, it merely restricts inflammatory comments (otherwise "user marks stuff for speedy that isn't a CSD" would be a personal attack too). -- fvw * 01:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   I don't necessarily doubt his/her soundness of judgement. I doubt his/her intelligence, or sanity, or something else. That's an attack any way you slice it, and I fear I may offend everyone I ever voted oppose on without a reason if I elaborate further. Andre ( talk) 02:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   As long as their judgement is sound, what does it matter if they're loopier than a gooseberry? In the end, it's their judgement that matters. -- fvw * 02:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   I wouldn't trust loopy individuals in positions of responsibility, and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to feel this way. Regardless, none of this has any bearing on what I would do as a bureaucrat... I have no trouble making decisions that might upset people, as long they aren't ad hominem. Andre ( talk) 02:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   I think always being willing to explain your decisions is an important characteristic for a bureaucrat, but we're obviously going to have to agree to disagree and this indentation is getting awful narrow anyway. -- fvw * 02:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   Indeed, and I do appreciate your feedback. As a bureaucrat, if I become one, I will always explain my decisions. Luckily, my personal opinions of users will not come into play, as a bureaucrat. Andre ( talk) 02:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   It seems to me that someone who is able to show restraint, and not post offending comments is an ideal candidate. Sometimes stupid propositions get made here, and I feel it is a good thing that Andre simply opposes instead of pointing out how stupid the matter being voted on is. Are you really opposing his bureaucratship because he has offensive thoughts that enter his mind, which he then decides not to use in an offensive manner? Jacoplane 00:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply

   Thanks for the support, Jacoplane. Andre ( talk) 00:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

   It's cool that he wishes to remain civil, but many take constructive criticism from those opposing. Look at Andre. He's changed from his last failed nomination. He's improved. I just wish he would offer criticism to the people he opposed. It's possible to do it in a peaceful manner. Acetic ' ^Acid 10:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

7. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose. Again, as with my votes on other bureaucrat nominations, this is not at all personal. Just not conviced this addition is needed at this time. The case has just not been made, and I am also share the concern others expressed about pushing the nomination. Jonathunder 21:40, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I think Andrevan is an excellent contributor to Wikipedia, but respectfully the candidacy as it is presented here does not project enough of the type of leadership and due diligence I feel Wikipedia's community has come to expect of bureaucrats. -- HappyCamper 01:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose per Acetic Acid. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:44, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, but not so much as to only be a comment. The 'ballot-stuffing' should have been unnecessary. A few, such as Func had requested notice, so that's of course ok. But this is not, or should not be, an election where you need to "get the vote out". It should happen naturally or not at all. - Splash 16:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

Neutral 'till my picky followon question is answered below. (And yes I realise that at some point it might be my turn :-P ) Kim Bruning 11:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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. Consensus. 80% generally, as well as a sizable amount of interest in the nomination, or between 75-80% in cases where consensus is clear despite the numeric gap. Sock puppets may be discarded if the vote is close, and so on.

This is a bureaucrat vote so I get to be really picky for once! (yay!);-) Is that Consensus or 80% ; is that Consensus := support>80% ; is that something else? Kim Bruning 10:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply

It's, one way of measuring consensus can be support>=80%. 74% and a lot of votes, "strong" supports, and weak opposes can be consensus as well. There's no hard and fast way to do it, but that's part of a bureaucrat's job. Andre ( talk) 17:37, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

A. Contentious nominations aren't special; they also must meet consensus. If it is close, I will suggest an extension of a day or two.

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 submit my edit history for your approval, readers of this answer. I feel I have shown myself to be a solid admin and contributor.