The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Zscout370

Final (14/11/9) ended 23:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been a Wikipedia Administrator since August of 2005, and some time later, made an Admin on a sister project, the Wikimedia Commons. During my time, I made some good decisions, and I made bad ones. Knowing that, I believe that with the experience that I have, I could try to use it and apply it on trying to pick the best Wikipedians to join the brotherhood of adminship. Also, I wish to seek the position so that other bcrats can take a rest and also give them another sparing partner to figure out the complex issues that we are tasked to perform. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Support. Good knowledge of policy all around, has a cool head, and is always open to questions. I've never bought the "We don't need more bureaucrats" bit to begin with, as per my RfB voting record. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 05:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support - very good user and very good admin, should make a very good b'crat as well. abakharev 06:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support - Richardcavell 09:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support A good admin. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 14:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support from my interactions Zscout370 has a super cool head and would be an excellent 'crat -- Tawker 22:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Unequivacable support Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 01:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Yes -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support -- Ahonc ( Talk) 07:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
10. We may or may not need more 'crats, but adding such trusted editors to the list can't do any harm. There is no evidence that a larger number of 'crats leads to problems, although that might be a reason for a freeze on RfA as the large number of admins is leading to problems. -- Doc ^ask? 09:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support. A level-headed and friendly guy. Brisvegas 09:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Strong support - What a fantastic guy. Very helpful user, respected among the community and friendly - what more could we wish for? -- Cel es tianpower ^háblame 10:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support, Zscout370 is a good bloke, more bureaucrats can't hurt. JIP | Talk 12:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
14. That's hot. Very serious and level-headed. Mike H. That's hot 19:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. A fine editor and unimpeachable admin. But, per my rationale from the last nth RfB's, we simply do not need more B'crats. Period. Strong Oppose. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   Additionally, per Durin and Cecropia, candidate has not sufficiently participated in, and does not fully understand, the RfA process. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Oppose: Low involvement in WP:RFA. Over tenure on Wikipedia, just 40 edits on RfA/RfBs other than to his own and this b-cat application. Involvement on WT:RFA is virtually absent; just one edit period ( [1]), and that was back in September of 2005. The general RfA/RfB inexperience and lack of involvement is borne out by nominee's incorrect submission of this RfB ( [2]) which was corrected by Titoxd ( [3]). In October of 2005, nominee said "I am not sure what a Bcrat needs to do" ( [4]). With such a low involvement in RfA, I doubt that has changed since then. Please note: I am in no way commenting on this nominee's abilities as an editor or administrator. -- Durin 14:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose per both above. Jonathunder 16:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose. It hurts to oppose such a terrific admin and editor, but I agree with Durin in that bureaucrats need more experience with RFA discussion. -- Tantalum T e lluride 22:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose. The answer to question 1 is wrong (pretty key, really), perhaps as a result of low participation in the key 'crat-related process. The nomination statement, as observed elsewhere, envisages a job that firstly doesn't need a bureaucrat bit and secondly makes me wonder if a 'crat undertaking such research might not be compromising their neutrality with respect to the process at large and certainly it does not seem right to use the 'influence' of the bureaucracy to lend added weight to a nomination. I understand that highly-respected nominators do do just that, but the nomination is an overt statement of using 'cratship in this kind of way, and that's something that I either don't feel comfortable with or haven't had any persuasion on yet. - Splash ^talk 02:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   There is a discussion concerning this vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Zscout370. -- Cecropia 03:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

6. Oppose. the complex issues that we are tasked to perform... that strikes me as a tad presumptious, as you're not in fact a Bureaucrat, so I don't understand why you'd use the term "we". Also Cecropia wisely questions your use of the term "pick", as Bureaucrats are supposed to be neutral. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose. While I see nothing wrong in having more bureaucrats, I think it is particularly important that the editor has a significant amount of experience in RfA/RfB processes. Therefore, I oppose per Durin. Pepsidrinka 04:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose: answers are pretty short and just do not convince me, sorry. Thumbelina 13:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose Splash is right. While RfA isn't wholly a number-game, and I could imagine a candidate wit 81% support failing for a very compelling reason, no one anywhere in RfB has ever mentioned 85% as a cutoff before, including Linuxbeak is his own nom. More time is needed for candidate to learn this process. Xoloz 13:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose, I recall Zscout370 being a bit hasty in certain situations, in my opinion. Talrias ( t | e | c) 20:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose Temperance. -- Masssiveego 21:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. I know of nothing that would disqualify Zscout, but then again, I've never seen anything which made me think Z's a standout from the regular pack of administrators (much as I may like him personally) and a clear choice for bureaucrat. -- maru (talk) contribs 06:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Per Maru, just about what I'd have said. NSL E _{( T+ C)} at 06:39 UTC ( 2006-03-21)
3. Neutral I was think support until I saw Durin's comment. Although, I think he should return to RFB one day and try again. Try to keep communication skills high. Moe ε 22:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutral. I don't know this admin well enough to lean one way or another, no specific support grounds, but no oppose grounds either. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Neutral, lacks the experience of a bureaucrat, but is a good admin. -- Ter e nc e Ong 09:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Neutral per Maru. enochlau ( talk) 12:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Neutral per Maru and Terence Ong. — Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Neutral I agree with the fact that the 85% figure is strictly off, and that some more time is needed, on RfA perhaps too. Also, I just don't see the need for more BCrats. We don't just promote people because they are really trushworthy and vote on RfA, we also check if there is a need; this is a categorical task, not a task every good contributor gets after a while. Voice-of-All ^{T| @| ESP} 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Neutral per Maru and Terence. -- Alan Au 23:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

• From nomination: "I could try to use it and apply it on trying to pick the best Wikipedians to join the brotherhood of adminship." Basic misunderstanding of position. Bureaucrats do not pick administrators and should be neutral on "best." Bcrats must be able to make rational, defensible, decisions in interpreting community consensus in difficult cases. -- Cecropia 15:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Question→ Why do people keep objecting on the ground that "we don't need more b'crats?" That's just nonsense. If people open Wiki-accounts everyday, that means that the project is growing. And if we need more Admins to deal with it all, why is the higher hierarchy being locked off from competent Admins? Surely we need more at the top if the bottom is increasing expeditiously. I just don't get it. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  Bureaucratship is not really a higher hierarchy as bureaucrats only have two very specific powers: Promotions and Name Changes, with the focus on the former. Just look at RfA: That's easily enough for one bureaucrat to handle, and we've got 8 or 9 actively doing it (indeed, more than half the bureaucrats don't even use their buttons, illustrating that the active bureaucrats are handling the workload just fine (indeed, with one bureaucrat handling the majority of promotions), and that bureaucratship is in many ways a popularity/approval contest). As the project grows, we do need more admins, but not more bureaucrats. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:58, 21 March 2006 (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. Yes. From what I notice, for those who have consensus above 85 percent, they are generally accepted. From 75-84 percent, they will most likely be accepted, but concerns from the opposition are taken into account. From 70-75, this is below the threshold for consensus and will only be promoted if a strong case is made. Under 70 percent is usually a decision in no promotion.

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

A. Take account all evidence that is presented, the response of the candidate to the issues not only during the nomination, but also when the issue was relevant. I will also use past RFA's as a guide to see how cases like this were decided, almost like how judges decided civil cases.

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. As an admin, I deal with people on a constant basis. Sometimes they are for graphic designing, but my deletion of primarily copyright violation images are usually handled by using current policy and explainations. While I have tried to steer the fair use policy on Wikipedia images, I will try to lead by example and not try to use fair use images on many occasions and trying to help others get free photos.

4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on 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. As some higher being as my witness, I do.

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. Of course. I am an unemployed community college student, and I have a lot of spare time to visit WP nearly any time. I am also usually at #wikipedia when I am on the computer.

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.