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

Nomination withdrawn by candidate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]

Questions for the candidate

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:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. Well, I look at it like this. No one at over 80% support has ever failed, the handful of times someone has passed at under 75% is a case that has a very unique footnote to it, and basically is an isolated incident. So, over 80% passes, under 75% almost always fails, 75-80% is b'crat discretion. That's the classic answer and one of those situations where the conventional thinking is actual just about on the money. I don't anticipate closing any RfA's with under 75% support as promotions, but then how could you anticipate such a thing? But nevertheless I doubt I'd do it. As for the "b'crat discretion" RfAs, I would err on the side of caution, and carefully review all comments.

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

A. About the same way I've successfully closed controversial discussions in general. Just making a good decision in the first place is the best way to avoid criticism. Other than that, I will understand that sometimes there's just no close that will satisfy everyone, and will be ready to explain myself in detail if needed. What more can one really 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. My track record. If nothing else I've always acted in good faith. I have written policy, I have debated policy, I have enforced policy. I have closed lots of discussions, some very controversial, and been overruled at DRV maybe once or twice, despite thousands of decisions. Maybe I overestimate my performance, but I think I've done a good job and generally see little sign that people seriously disagree. But it comes down to my track record, the evidence is there that I know what I'm doing and can be very fair and trustworthy.

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, or at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard where such discussion would be transparent?

A. Sure. This is a bit of a non-issue lately, as I hardly ever go on IRC and have no ongoing e-mail conversations with Wikipedians where I might be tempted to start blathering away.

5. 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.

6. Determining consensus is a crucial part of Wikipedia, more-so to our bureaucrats as they have a lot of trust placed in them. Have a look at this RfA, then please give an idea as to what you believe the consensus is there and if you'd of promoted the user. Matthew 08:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Even though I personally supported Ryulong and am unaware of any real problems since he became an admin, I wouldn't have promoted there, and I think I said that at the time. It becomes increasingly hard to buy that the b'crat is really closing based on consensus when there's so much non-trivial opposition like in that case. I'm not running to be given a super-vote at RfA, I'm running to close discussions based on consensus.

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

• I think your conduct at the start of the Essjay AFD could have been better, but I will not hold it against you. No opinion. – Chacor 06:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Your conduct in the Essjay situation was harsh. I don't think anyone can trust your decisions as a bureaucrat if you are incapable of conducting yourself with discretion 70.53.129.234 10:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Oh no. I was considering nominating myself (bad idea, I know) but considering you're already here, I'd be happy to support. I've never seen any bad conduct from this user, at least from my point of view, and would be happy to be the first supporter. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Grue  10:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Rlevse 12:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose for multiple discussions I had with him at Essjay AFD. — Moe 07:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Conduct at the Essjay AFD is unacceptable. Ral315 » 11:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Asking questions? That's all I did, then asserted my right to do so when someone wrongly assumed I was on a crusade to save the article and told me to be quiet. I know some people prefer tough questions never be asked about some topics, but I'm not like that, obviously. And I know we've only promoted b'crats who'd never dream of doing anything politically incorrect, but RfA is also very stagnant, I do believe there's at least some connection. Not that I intend to ever become an interrogator at RfA (this is probably the first opposer I've challenged in months) but some evidence of a backbone in a b'crat candidate might be a good thing for a change. --W.marsh 15:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. I didn't like the recent conduct at the Essjay AfD, and regarding your 2nd RfA, I wouldn't want another crat to burn out, or even think of it, because some silly conflict. Very sorry. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per Essjay AFD situation, but only because of his ridiculous response to Ral315 which fails to assume good faith about this "someone" who "wrongly assumed I was on a crusade to save the article" (i.e., me). Ridiculous accusations which I will not accept. – Chacor 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. This user is a very good one, and I have had only good experiences with him. I think he can be trusted with the bureaucrat tools, contrary to our Anonymous Coward in the discussion section. I think everyone of us overreacted in Essjay's matter, and consider this to be one of those things that are not likely to happen again (we are talking about apocalyptic proportions, I guess only Jimbo or Angela lying may bring a similar repercussion). However, I expressed my concerns that some users could be after Essjay's bits, and although I truly don't think W.marsh is one of them, I can't be hypocrite and support a RfB at this time. In the future, sure, but not right now. -- ReyBrujo 14:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship 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.