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

Jtkiefer

Vote here (14/5/2) ending 5:03 December 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer (talk · contribs)

WITHDRAWN JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 09:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Jtkiefer and I think I would make a good bureaucrat since I am experienced in many aspects of Wikipedia both on editorial and administrative issues. I have been an editor since mid June 2005 and an administrator since August 2005 (somewhere between 2 and 3 months between my first edit and adminship for all those sufferers of timecountitis) and for anyone who cares to know I have no idea how many edits I have nor do I care to take the effort to check since I'd rather be building an encyclopedia than counting my edits (anyone is welcome to add a comment stating my edit count if they wish though). Although I don't especially like the fact that certain parts of the job are even needed (in a perfect wiki there wouldn't be any vandals and blocking would be entirely uneeded) I have taken part in the broad spectrum of administrative duties. I have also been trying to coax Green Day into being a better article and hopefully even an eventual candidate for featured status.


I think we need more bureaucrats to deal with the fact that last month name changes were re-enabled so there should be plenty of editors who can change names on request. As I said in my first nomination I also believe that with the increasing number of editors on Wikipedia we will have an influx of requests for adminship that will have to be closed and I think that even now we are beginning to see longer turnover times between when an RFA reaches the closing time and when it is actually closed. I think that these can be easily taken care of by having more bureaucrats.


To those who think that we do not need more bureaucrats or that bureaucratship should be limited to a select few I have this to say... What is worse, having too many bureaucrats where each individual bureaucrat has to do less work or having too few bureaucrat and having things like name changes and request for adminship actually develop backlogs (hopefully never will happen) because we have too few because we were needlessly stingy in giving it out. Bureaucratship is not a small deal, in that it is much unlike adminship which is "no big deal" but at the same time it's not a huge deal either. Bureaucratship is just the ability to help do two other tasks for the project. I also think that the chances of my abusing the position of this (an issue that was brought up in the last nomination) are so low as to not even be comperable. If anybody has any question as to anything that I have done, will do or anything else I encourge them to look at my contributions and if you have any comments or questions either leave them here or on my talk page, or you can bring them up to me on IRC, I don't bite... really. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. First Vote Support Yes we need more bureaucrats. --Jaranda wat's sup 05:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I second that, a lot of reasons for opposing bureaucrats are weak. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. He is trustworhty AND my RfA was closed pretty late(off schedule). We need more Bureaucrates to keep up with the pace sometimes. 1 or 2 more "B"s won't hurt. Here is one :-).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I trust this user very much, he deserves it. However, those who opposed your last nomination will be quick to jump on the oppose wagon; it has only been a month you know. -Greg Asche (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I see nothing but good consequences from making this user a bureaucrat. I don't think "more time" will have any bearing on his ability to process RFAs and namechanges. Coffee 05:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, but I don't think you'll pass, having not waited very long since last time. Andre (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Niceness trumps all other factors for me. That, and he nearly pooped his pants over an autoblock problem an hour or so ago on IRC. We need more pant pooper bureaucrats. karmafist 05:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Yes more bureucrats. Jobe6 05:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as last time! --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 06:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. We could do with more bureaucrats and Jtkiefer is the ideal candidate. the wub "?!" 11:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Of course. - David Gerard 17:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, he's sane, well mannered, and seems versed in WP procedures. Good mix. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as per Greg Asche, Coffee, Chairboy. Seems like an eager candidate. Put him to work! Hamster Sandwich 06:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yeah, that's a support. Why the heck not. He seems nice, so that's a plus. Matt Yeager 08:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Following his previous request for bureaucratship, Jtkiefer accosted me in IRC and berated me for my vote, calling me and the other oppose voters "ignorant", and persisted in doing so, despite my best attempts at diplomacy. Also, my reason from the previous request still stands: I'd prefer quite a bit more experience. — Dan | talk 06:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. His reasons for wanting to become a bureaucrat are based on speculation rather than fact - in particular, the suggestion that a bureaucrat backlog (to renaming and admining) may exist at some point in the future. If and when such a backlog exists, then his reasoning would be appopriate. Also, it's too soon (one month) after his previous nomination failed, and I see no evidence of having addressed the objections from that RFB. Radiant_>|< 16:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I normally try not to respond to votes unless the voter poses a direct question to me but I'd like to note that there are no actionable criticisms from my previous RFB unles you include the time issue as actionable, also 1 month (and yes my nom is 2 months short of 1 month) is the standard time to wait between any type of nomination whether it be AFD. FAC. FPC, RFA, or in this case RFB and I don't just want bureaucratship to deal with a speculative backlog I also think I could be helpful with ongoing RFA closes and user rename requests. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kinda Strong Oppose for the sole reason that first nom for B'crat only closed one month ago. I would consider a second RfA in one month poor form, and I consider a second RfB in essentially one month very poor form. Xoloz 21:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standard time to wait between nominations is at least 1 month and I followed that and waited a month so how is that poor form? Or is there another reason behind this vote as well? JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just like to say here that on Wikipedia, many standards are often wildly unstandard, and rfa/rfb nomination standards are usually more Darwinian than anything (if you can pass now, even you might have had an rfa/rfb that failed last week, there's no real issue with running again now.) karmafist 22:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose My interactions with him so far suggests he gets defensive a bit too easily, (although to be fair I wasn't very civil with him, and he was unfailingly civil with me) so I suggest more time as an Admin first... but I'm a newbie compared to most of you. However it strikes me that getting defensive interferes with 'ability to engage with others in the community' ++Lar 23:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: this vote is most likely due to the fact that I discounted his vote on an AFD and he for some reason took that personally. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you may be ascribing my motives too easily. I am not taking anything personally, though, or at least I don't think I am (it is always hard to tell!). I just think you get defensive easily and I see your comment above as another example of that. The vote you discounted (without being able to remember why) was our first interaction, yes, but it hasn't been the only one where I saw you getting defensive. In fact, I perceive you (perhaps incorrectly) getting defensive in response to Radiant and Xoloz, above, and I stand by my opinion, and by my view that getting defensive early in a conversation interferes with ability to engage. ++Lar
  5. Oppose. Im not gonna oppose on the crappy (pardon my french) grounds "We do not need more bureaucrats". I think that you are a good editor, Jtkiefer, but you seem a bit too eager to become a Bureaucrat; you have not been an editor for a full six months and already this is your second attempt at bureaucratship. Please, just give it a little time; Im sure that with your valuable contributions, you'll make it. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well excuse me for being one of the few people who actually wants the job. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and yes that is a crappy reason. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Could do with a little bit more time to improve. Notice the small improvement already since last requests for bureaucratship --Adam1213 Talk + 09:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so I know what in particular I can improve on is there anything in particular you would like me to try to work on? I am always open for suggestions. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per campaigning on irc, sorry but that just sets a really really bad precident if you want to be a bcrat. Since we dont really need anymore bcrats at this point in time, any who nominate themselves should be well beyond controversy. Great editor, great admin, poor choice for bcrat imo.  ALKIVAR™ 07:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a joke that I forgot to take down off the topic, if the topic is the main reason your opposing you might want to reconsider, though I understand if you don't. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you say it was a joke, and you've always been trustworthy before... Changed to Neutral.  ALKIVAR™ 09:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Of course, I like questions from people who are unsure how they want to vote and I'll try to answer your question as best I can. I think we need more bureaucrats due to the fact that we have ever rising numbers of editors and ever rising number of administrator candidates and with each comes certain side issues such as most likely having more name change requests especially since this feature has been recently been reactivated and also more administrative requests that have to be dealt with. I am not going to say that the recent day long backlog was anything more than a fluke and indeed in itself I think it was just that however I think it is quite possibly a warning of a larger backlog issue that will develop if RFA grows quickly with no increase in the number of bureaucrats which is an issue I believe needs to be stopped before it even has a chance to start. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there are a couple editors I have in mind in terms of trying to convince, all of whom I think would get resounding support but I am not prepared to mention names at this time. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 09:09, 11 December 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. I understand a consensus to promote to be roughly 75-80% though it really depends on the individual nomination since each nomination brings with it different circumstances and so the consensus to nominate may fall at a different percentage number.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. I would discuss it with fellow bureaucrats and if at that point there was no clear consensus I'd either extend the time until closing to allow for for a more clear consensus to develop and if even then there was no clear consensus I'd suggest a revote.
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 am active in many aspects of the wiki including AFD and RC Patrol so I have both gotten the chance to interact with many of my fellow users as well as read up on many of the wikipedia policies. I pride my self on the fact that I have been able to be civil in my dealing with other wikipedians and have quite a few good discussions with fellow editors on my and their talk page(s).
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.
Category