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

(27/7/2); Ended 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Acalamari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to present myself as a candidate for bureaucratship.

Why do I want to become a bureaucrat? Well, I feel motivated to become one because I believe I could be useful with the bureaucratic tasks. I would like to help close requests for adminship (not just SNOWS and RfAs of candidates who have withdrawn, which I already close) and flag bots, but most of all I would like to help out at Wikipedia:Changing usernames, where currently, according to user rename log, WJBscribe and Andrevan handle most of the renaming. As I am not supposed to answer requests at CHU myself, it will be easier on the bureaucrats if I could actually handle requests and not bug the bureaucrats instead.

With my time here as an editor and an administrator, as many people are familiar, I have been an editor since October of 2006 and an administrator since July of 2007. In my time as an administrator, I have performed well over 5,000 admin actions, all of which were made with a lot of thought and caution put into them. My admin and editorial actions have never led to an AN or ANI discussion being filed on me, nor has an RfC or an RFAR being created due to do my actions. I am also a very civil and kind user.

I believe I can be trusted with the bureaucrat tools, and I believe I have shown good judgment with the tools I already have. At this time also, I have also performed more rollback grantings than any other admin, according to these statistics, and, while I have performed the most, I have been careful regarding the grantings. I will apply this cautiousness and good judgment to bureaucratic actions.

I await the community's input in this request for bureaucratship. Acalamari 17:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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. With requests for adminship, from my observations and readings of RfA, anything above 80% is almost always successful, under 70% is almost always unsuccessful, and 70%-80% is the considered the area where a bureaucrat is supposed to exercise the most discretion. A deviation, however slight, from these should always be done with caution, and in all cases, a bureaucrat should be ready to explain their decision.

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

A. I would take it to a place such as the bureaucrats' noticeboard for both community and bureaucrat discussion if it was necessary and more opinions were needed. It is important that the discussion take place publicly so the community can participate, and later, view what was discussed to see how a decision was reached. Communication and openness are vital, and a bureaucrat must always be ready to explain their decisions if they are questioned, which I would be happy to do.

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 believe I covered this in my actual nomination statement, but yes, I do believe I meet these standards. I have my record to stand by.

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, of course. I would not request bureaucratship if I did not have the time to perform bureaucratic duties, and watchlist and visit the places bureaucrats work at.

Question from EJF

5. Do you feel that your challenging of several opposers in this RfA was necessary, and would you continue to do this if you were to be given bureaucratship?

A. No, and if I had the chance to do it again, I wouldn't. I wasn't aggressive in my actions, but I don't think it was necessary to respond to the opposes that I did. As a bureaucrat, I would refrain from responding to opposition, as I strongly believe that bureaucrats should be neutral. Acalamari 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Tiptoety

6. When would you close a RfA as un-successful when the nominee has more than 70% support !votes?

A. Most likely when there are strong arguments against a candidate's promotion, and/or where the majority of the opposition had taken place within the final two days, though the in latter case, an extension may be necessary instead. In close cases, neutrals would also have to be factored in more, and if their points were leaning more towards opposition than support, that would likely contribute to a candidate in the discretionary range's not being promoted. Acalamari 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from VanTucky

7. What is your perspective on the recent resysopping of ^demon, in light of the fact that his reconfirmation RFA closed with less than 65% support? How you would you have closed it and why?

A. I believe that there was no consensus to promote ^demon in that request for adminship, and thus, would have closed it as unsuccessful. The fact that it was a reconfirmation RfA does not mean it should receive any sort of special treatment, and there were very valid concerns in that RfA. I do not believe that there was any consensus to promote, and would not have promoted. Acalamari 20:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See Acalamari's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

1. Yes. Rudget. 17:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong Support - For sure and yeah he is really matured for his age, and will make an excellent addition to the Crat colony :p !! ....--Cometstyles 17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Enthusiastic support You are always civil, always polite, and always conversational. I trust you to be neutral, honest, & fair. нмŵוτнτ 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Definitely. AGK (contact) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support, finally gave in to peer pressure, I see. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Maybe I should put something to warm people's heart here. Ah well, Good luck :) Qst (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. I strongly support Acalamari, as I have watched some of his general interactions as an admin and he appears an entirely good-faith user. I also support per answer to Q5, he has allayed my concerns and I believe he will be a good bureaucrat. EJF (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support He would make a fine addition to the bureaucrats. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Dlohcierekim 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong support Acalamari impresses me as fair, even-handed, and unfailingly helpful and pleasant to work with. I think he would be well suited to this role. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Now we're talking!!! This is probably the strongest support I've ever had for an RfB. Acal is always helpful and civil. Way to pwn RFPP, by the way. Acal will make a great crat! Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Happy to support. One question though, who's going to remake "the t-shirt" and give it to Acalamari-crat? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong Support I believe that he is one of the most competent admins out there, and feel that he has learned from his challenging of the oppose votes on Mongo's 2nd RFA. Has a strong track record, and appears that he can be a fairly neutral crat when the need arises. ArcAngel (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong support - Ive seen this user around and worked with them on my year or so here and think they would make a great crat. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Enthusiastic support for this very viable candidate. (I can hardly restrain myself.) —— I'm convinced he's up to the job. Dorftrottel (criticise) 19:22, February 28, 2008
16. Strong Support - Never had a negative interation, very civil, and ha proven to be able to come to a consensus rather well. No doubt in my mind Acalamari will abuse the tools. Tiptoety ^talk 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Strong Support Acalamari is a great person and I'm sure he would be a good bureaucrat. I absolutely trust him. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. support —DerHexer (Talk) 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Strongest Possible Support Levelheaded,Cool ,civil and Trustworthy and has contributed a lot to Wikipedia.No doubts whatsoever.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong support per above. Great user, contributor, and also friendly. Also interacted with him in the past. PS: Acalamari sounds like a delicious username. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support I've always had perfectly delightful dealings with Acalamari and found him to be a fine admin. Combine that with good answers to questions here, and you have a sterling candidate. VanTucky 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support--Phoenix-wiki 21:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Acalamari has the necessary experience, attitude, and knowledge to take up the mantle of enwiki bureaucratship, I think. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Good, hardworking editor with enough experience. Malinaccier (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - I trust Acalamari, and the opposers don't convince me enough not to. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. I was thinking about pestering you to run earlier. I think you'd make a great crat! :) SQL^{Query me!} 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Great contributor, as far as I know, but I get the impression he'd support pretty much anyone for adminship. Assuming good faith is great, but demanding competence is better. We already have a problem with promoting bad admins, and I suspect despite his best efforts he may make it worse. Call it the optimism of youth, perhaps, but it's a big concern to me. Friday (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Side note - Acalamari is a male. EJF (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oops, sorry. Edited appropriately. Friday (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, sorry :/ Too many of Acalamari's decisions and initiatives he supports have troubled me, and I'm not sure he has the judgment needed of a 'crat. krimpet✽ 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Acalamari is a good editor, who seems to have grown considerably in his time here. But I think he's still growing and that this is just extremely soon. There's some necessity to see a user go through the fire and the flames, as it were, and carry on, so we see how they handle being in the cooker. To support after such a short time I'd want to see exceptionally good judgment under pressure. At Mongo's recent RFA, as just one example, he didn't really instill confidence that he is ready to be a 'crat. Particularly the odd comment that if one assumes bad faith it is appropriate to assume bad faith in turn. Eye-for-an-eye makes the whole world go blind. Niggling doubts combined with inexperience leave me unable to support at this time. --JayHenry (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Ouch. He feels the pain of a lifetime lost in a thousand days. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, on a cold winter morning, in a time before the light, Acalamari thought he'd take a shot and join the RfB bandwagon. Hopefully the time when he's ready in your opinion isn't so far away. Wizardman 19:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Too soon. Can't support at this time. Sorry, R. Baley (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose - I'm really sorry. Acalamari is a super admin and I remember his RfA well. He's really come up to speed in the last year but I don't believe he's anywhere near ready for the position of bureaucrat - Alison ^❤ 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Acalamari seems to have forgotten that the most important criteria for promotion is community consensus - his answer to Q1 and the nom is basically all numbers. If it where so, there'd be a bot that would promote all of over 80% and fail anything below 70%. Maxim_(talk) 21:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - I really like Acalamari, and I hate to oppose, but I'm just not sure he's ready - and a support on an RFB is something I have to be really sure about it. Give it another year or so, and I'm sure I'll have built up a confidence level. - Philippe | Talk 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral. I don't feel strongly enough about it to oppose, but I don't think Acalamari is experienced enough (7 months as an admin). Neıl ☎ 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm going to refrain from responding too much to opposition or neutrals, but for the record, I have been an administrator for nearly 8 months. Acalamari 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm rounding down. :p Neıl ☎ 18:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Ha! I didn't see Neil's sig at first, I thought you neutraled yourself :) Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. As Neil, I expect administrators to have at least a year under their arm before requesting bureaucratship. However, I will never oppose an admin only because of that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.