Nomination withdrawn by candidate
Final (3/4/1) Ended 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
W.marsh ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - With the recent (unfortunate) departure of Essjay, it occurs to me that it couldn't hurt to have another active b'crat. How convenient that I think I'd make a good candidate, huh? At any rate, I would just like to see if the community agrees, I really have no idea how this will go. But if people would trust me as a b'crat, I think I am ready to take a step back from closing AfDs and my other areas of focus to work on RFA and to some extent the other areas of b'crat work. I don't deny I largely share Taxman's view that changing usernames isn't the most terribly important thing towards our goal of writing an encyclopedia, but especially in cases of privacy concerns, I can help out there in my free time.
However, my main focus would be closing RFAs. I trust the active crats, but as we see occasionally, even the most trusted and respected Wikipedians leave, or just need a break, and it just seems like time for a new 'crat (the most recent was in June of last year). My opinions on RFA can be easily found in my many comments on WT:RFA, but most generally, I see RFA as being simply a product of the participants in RFA. Good participation means good admins are chosen, and thus RFA "works". Bad participation means RfA is "broken". It's the people, not the system, that matters. There's no magic bullet way to set up the RfA process that will fix all of our assorted gripes with it, we can't just "rearrange the deck chairs" to solve these problems, as the same people will still be participating, making the same good or bad decisions. This means I don't take "new process needed to fix RFA immediately!" proposals all that seriously, though I do encourage discussion of RfA's problems. Also, as I've pointed out, remarkably little ever seems to substantially change on RfA, and Wikipedia hasn't fallen apart yet, so RfA appears to be working.
That's my attitude on RfA. I think it's well reasoned and increasingly common amongst commentators, and represents the kind of realistic grasp a b'crat should have. As for the role of b'crats, I realize it's much less direct and prominent than what I'm used to, and I am ready for the change. Actually, I think it's about time, given my evolution as a Wikipedian.
I have participated in Wikipedia for a bit over 1.5 years and been an admin for over a year, I have done a little bit of everything at this point. People will probably want to view my second RfA, which pretty much explains itself. Other than that, a lot of you know me, hopefully you understand what I'm about at this point. Those that don't, well, sorry there are so many cleanup edits to sift through, but I'm sure you'll give my Wikipedia career quite a thorough review, and I welcome that. W.marsh 06:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Nomination withdrawn by candidate
Final (3/4/1) Ended 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
W.marsh ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - With the recent (unfortunate) departure of Essjay, it occurs to me that it couldn't hurt to have another active b'crat. How convenient that I think I'd make a good candidate, huh? At any rate, I would just like to see if the community agrees, I really have no idea how this will go. But if people would trust me as a b'crat, I think I am ready to take a step back from closing AfDs and my other areas of focus to work on RFA and to some extent the other areas of b'crat work. I don't deny I largely share Taxman's view that changing usernames isn't the most terribly important thing towards our goal of writing an encyclopedia, but especially in cases of privacy concerns, I can help out there in my free time.
However, my main focus would be closing RFAs. I trust the active crats, but as we see occasionally, even the most trusted and respected Wikipedians leave, or just need a break, and it just seems like time for a new 'crat (the most recent was in June of last year). My opinions on RFA can be easily found in my many comments on WT:RFA, but most generally, I see RFA as being simply a product of the participants in RFA. Good participation means good admins are chosen, and thus RFA "works". Bad participation means RfA is "broken". It's the people, not the system, that matters. There's no magic bullet way to set up the RfA process that will fix all of our assorted gripes with it, we can't just "rearrange the deck chairs" to solve these problems, as the same people will still be participating, making the same good or bad decisions. This means I don't take "new process needed to fix RFA immediately!" proposals all that seriously, though I do encourage discussion of RfA's problems. Also, as I've pointed out, remarkably little ever seems to substantially change on RfA, and Wikipedia hasn't fallen apart yet, so RfA appears to be working.
That's my attitude on RfA. I think it's well reasoned and increasingly common amongst commentators, and represents the kind of realistic grasp a b'crat should have. As for the role of b'crats, I realize it's much less direct and prominent than what I'm used to, and I am ready for the change. Actually, I think it's about time, given my evolution as a Wikipedian.
I have participated in Wikipedia for a bit over 1.5 years and been an admin for over a year, I have done a little bit of everything at this point. People will probably want to view my second RfA, which pretty much explains itself. Other than that, a lot of you know me, hopefully you understand what I'm about at this point. Those that don't, well, sorry there are so many cleanup edits to sift through, but I'm sure you'll give my Wikipedia career quite a thorough review, and I welcome that. W.marsh 06:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
Oppose
Neutral