Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly 3

< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by R~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 03:42, 28 February 2008 (→‎Support: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Majorly

Voice your opinion (talk page) (4/0/0); Scheduled to end 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Majorly (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - I suggested on the RfA talk page that people request bureaucratship, so it's only right I should run too, I think. I'll try to keep it short: I've been around since June 06, admin since October 06, and I have admin rights on Meta-wiki, Simple English Wikipedia and Commons. I also have the advantage of bureaucrat rights on Meta-wiki, where I am the most active bureaucrat. I request bureaucratship, basically because I want to help out more, and I believe I am suitable for the job. I am very familiar with the RfA process - I've nominated nearly 20 users on this wiki, and 32 in total. I've followed RfA results in the past, and they are available here. With my experience of bureaucratship on another wiki, I'm familiar with how the process works and especially with difficult closures (we had to close a difficult confirmation last month). All in all, I am here for the long term. I'm here to write an encyclopedia (and help maintain it, as admins do). There is just one question to ask: Do you think Majorly will perform the tasks of a bureaucrat well? Several people have commented to me that I should run, and while I had originally been put off the idea by various things, I still feel I am a suitable candidate, and I am at your service. Majorly (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Well, yes :) Majorly (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. When there is a community consensus.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. I would stick with the current bureaucrat guidelines. The only time RfA closures are ever questioned are when they are not closed according to community consensus. Because of this, I will always close with the community in mind.
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 feel I am approachable, friendly and knowledgable. Whilst I don't get on with everyone, I don't like to make enemies either. I am, above all, a human being (you'll have to forgive me for that major flaw :))
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. Yes.

Question from SorryGuy:

5. I hate to go here with you, but if you would state your current view on reconfirmation RfAs and if you feel that they should be treated differently than normal RfAs, it would be appriciated. SorryGuy  Talk  03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SorryGuy, my view is that they should be treated the same. I think that if a user wishes to go through RfA again, that's up to them and their problem only. People can comment on it at their leisure, and it's not a waste of anyone's time because we are all volunteers here. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support. Yes. - Philippe | Talk 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. Enough said. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support -(edit conflict) No problems here. (1st non-admin again!).--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: Short, sweet, and full of delicious nectar. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely. Surely. Indubitably. There, I've used more adjectives! Nobody steal my adjectives! Write real supports! Majorly rocks. That's a real support. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Inevitable username joke support - if he can do it on meta, he can do it on enwiki. Will (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I've always thought of Majorly as a great guy. He's been a fine admin, and at points I've seen him express about how Wikipedia is messed up. And he's right and I applaud him for doing so. Those who see the flaws of Wikipedia are some of the best users. He'll be a majorly good crat. -- R TalkContribs@ 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose
Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Majorly_3&oldid=194581216"