- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Jtkiefer
Final (2/9/1) ending 15:23 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn
I am Jtkiefer and would like to be a bureaucrat. I am currently an administrator and have been active in all aspects of Wikipedia from editing articles to dealing with administrative issues such as
AFD and of course am active in voting on admin candidacies on
RFA. I also do not shy away from controversies as they pop up but I don't seek them out as a matter of course unless I feel that I can be some help in resolving the conflict.
I think I would make a good bureaucrat due to the fact that I am level headed and make good decisions. I also know Wikipedia's policies inside and out and have always attempted to be civil towards other editors. I also feel that there is no set number of bureaucrats needed and that having someone like me as another bureaucrat would only help.
Support
- Support We need more bureaucrats in Wikipedia. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 06:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Sarge Baldy 06:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Strong Oppose Great admin, but 3 failed tries, and this one is less than a month since the last. Seems like a power grab to me. - Greg Asche (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose unless something has changed in the last couple of weeks since the last failed RfB. – Clockwork Soul 05:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, doing this on a monthly basis is in rather poor taste. — Kirill Lok s hin 05:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, c'mon man.. monthly RfB's are bad. I'd give it at least 3 months before trying again. — Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Um...no. Johnleemk | Talk 10:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose; déjà vu. smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 10:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. - Bobet 12:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Also, the community has clearly indicated in three previous requests by Jtkiefer that they don't want him as a bureaucrat. Enough is enough. This fourth request indicates to me that Jtkiefer views this as an end in itself rather than a means to an end. Talrias ( t | e | c) 14:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Talrias. This is getting out of hand. Acetic Acid 14:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral Have not finished reviewing your edits, but I generally have a case of agecountitis of 1 year for crats. xaosflux Talk/ CVU 05:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- Prior RFB's
- Ended 18:07 2006-01-22 (UTC) with a result of (3/20/3)
- Ended 09:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC) with a result of (WITHDRAWN)
- Ended 19:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC) with a result of (WITHDRAWN)
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. I have read the discussions many times and keep up with all the changes on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship so that I can always keep on top of current consensus on RFA related issues.
- 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
- A. I would use my judgment in conjunction with discussion with my fellow bureaucrats if I felt that discussion was necessary but in the end I accept that I would be responsible for the final decision that I made.
- 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 meet this standard because I hold myself to high standards and have always been polite to other users. I pride myself on being civil to other editors even if a situation becomes heated and am always willing to apologize to another person if I am wrong.
- 4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on IRC or 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, where such discussion would be transparent?
- A. Yes, I believe in transparency in RFA processes.
- 5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?
- A. I have both the time and the desire and I visit both the RFA page and it's talk page several times each day so that I always am aware of what is going on. I also make use of Dragonflight's RFA listings page
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Jtkiefer
Final (2/9/1) ending 15:23 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn
I am Jtkiefer and would like to be a bureaucrat. I am currently an administrator and have been active in all aspects of Wikipedia from editing articles to dealing with administrative issues such as
AFD and of course am active in voting on admin candidacies on
RFA. I also do not shy away from controversies as they pop up but I don't seek them out as a matter of course unless I feel that I can be some help in resolving the conflict.
I think I would make a good bureaucrat due to the fact that I am level headed and make good decisions. I also know Wikipedia's policies inside and out and have always attempted to be civil towards other editors. I also feel that there is no set number of bureaucrats needed and that having someone like me as another bureaucrat would only help.
Support
- Support We need more bureaucrats in Wikipedia. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 06:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Sarge Baldy 06:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Strong Oppose Great admin, but 3 failed tries, and this one is less than a month since the last. Seems like a power grab to me. - Greg Asche (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose unless something has changed in the last couple of weeks since the last failed RfB. – Clockwork Soul 05:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, doing this on a monthly basis is in rather poor taste. — Kirill Lok s hin 05:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, c'mon man.. monthly RfB's are bad. I'd give it at least 3 months before trying again. — Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Um...no. Johnleemk | Talk 10:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose; déjà vu. smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 10:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. - Bobet 12:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Also, the community has clearly indicated in three previous requests by Jtkiefer that they don't want him as a bureaucrat. Enough is enough. This fourth request indicates to me that Jtkiefer views this as an end in itself rather than a means to an end. Talrias ( t | e | c) 14:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Talrias. This is getting out of hand. Acetic Acid 14:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral Have not finished reviewing your edits, but I generally have a case of agecountitis of 1 year for crats. xaosflux Talk/ CVU 05:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- Prior RFB's
- Ended 18:07 2006-01-22 (UTC) with a result of (3/20/3)
- Ended 09:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC) with a result of (WITHDRAWN)
- Ended 19:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC) with a result of (WITHDRAWN)
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. I have read the discussions many times and keep up with all the changes on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship so that I can always keep on top of current consensus on RFA related issues.
- 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
- A. I would use my judgment in conjunction with discussion with my fellow bureaucrats if I felt that discussion was necessary but in the end I accept that I would be responsible for the final decision that I made.
- 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 meet this standard because I hold myself to high standards and have always been polite to other users. I pride myself on being civil to other editors even if a situation becomes heated and am always willing to apologize to another person if I am wrong.
- 4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on IRC or 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, where such discussion would be transparent?
- A. Yes, I believe in transparency in RFA processes.
- 5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?
- A. I have both the time and the desire and I visit both the RFA page and it's talk page several times each day so that I always am aware of what is going on. I also make use of Dragonflight's RFA listings page
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.