Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/ABF 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Withdrawn at user request.

ABF: You have received some very good feedback here. Please take it to heart, and follow up on your excellent idea of asking folk for more information. Give it some time and try again soon if you still wish to. Meanwhile please ask any questions you might have, and thanks for your wonderful contributions. ++Lar: t/c 23:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABF

Links for candidate: ABF (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Dear community, I would like to nominate ABF for the bureaucrat status. Sysop since now more than a year, with more than 11,500 contributions, more than 20,000 sysop actions, a tendency to act reasonably and with a good relational, I can’t help but seeing ABF has the capacity and contribute helpfully with bureaucrat rights (injurious usernames renaming, SUL of course, and, being particularly active on RfAs, giver of sysop status). From what I talked about with him, I think he is ready for this nomination; he acknowledges that performing bureaucrat actions in the bad way can be (very) harmful for the project, and may be time-consuming anyway. →Diti the penguin — 16:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel very honoured by this, thanks Diti. I acceppt this nomination. :) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 16:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to gain more experience, and am withdrawing. I will be contacting folks direclty for more feedback. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 23:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

I hope I am allowed to reply short ;) I know that adminship is no big deal, but big work in maintenance-areas. I only oppose users of whom I believe they do not have enough knowledges on commons to handle sysop-decissions in a unharmfull way for this project, and that where not as many users in the past month ;) Regards and thank you for your oppinnion, abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support And it is ok to oppose RfA's. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support personally known, trusted user --S[1] 18:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. ABF is a very good contributor to Wikimedia Commons, but I feel unsure about giving him the big mop. While I have no reason to believe he'd be unfit for user renaming or SUL stuff, I am really uncomfortable with giving him the ability to promote sysops. Nothing personal, I think ABF is a good sysop, but I happen to think we have much better candidates for bureaucratship. guillom 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I believe ABF is a hard worker and I am grateful for all the time he puts into Wikimedia Commons. I wish, however, he would have asked the advice of sitting bureaucrats before accepting this nomination. This is a completely different role than sysop; and while I trust ABF's abilities for the sysop role, I have to oppose his nomination for bureaucrat. This is not personal, nor is it an indictment of my faith in ABF's good faith and honest intent. Bastique demandez 19:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment I asked Darkoneko (talk · contribs)'s advise (sysop and bureaucrat on fr.wikipedia; steward) before nominating ABF. →Diti the penguin — 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - ABF is a fine administrator but simply is not the best choice for this role. Despite ABF's activity in nominating users for adminship (and his participation in other RFAs where they are not the nominator), I do not think they have the requisite judgement to perform promotions. This is not to say that they are untrustworthy per se, however they are not well suited for this role. I too wish ABF had consulted some trusted users (whether bureaucrats or not) prior to this request. I would have much preferred to avoid making such statements in public, however given that this is a live request, I find myself unable to support this candidate.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Until the above three users provide some sort of persuasive argument for not promoting ABF, I support him. Bureaucratship is not a big deal, and it is very unfortunate that the above three users (all well-respected) would do this. Majorly talk 21:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Dəstək trusted User --Mardetanha talk 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Szczepan talk 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, per Mike.lifeguard; furthermore I see please cool down blocks and that rather strange story about this block where I had the impression that the candidate was quite proud of it (I don't really care for the reasons, but blocking regulars is not something one should be proud of). Sorry, but I feel that this user is far from being mature enough for this tool. --Complex (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment first of all thank you for showing Mutter Erde's advertise works as he wanted. Second I'd like to say that I am never pround of any block and that I only place blocks I concidder preventative. About the block of Arnomane you can clearly see that I lifted the block and also I'd like to tell you, that I really had a nice and peacefull and also very constructive 2 hour IRC discussion with him about that. I hope that helps you, abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 22:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{comment without any template}} I haven't seen that post of Mutter Erde before you wrote me about this (and I think it is better not to discuss my watchlist on commons here). However, your comment does not change my perception about what I feel about your maturity to act wisely as a crat even in controversial situations. To talk to people is the most important thing for an administrator and I have no reason to believe that you did not, but still, revoking some bureaucrat's action is often not that easy. --Complex (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Firstly I would like to say that ABF is easily the most prolific admin nominator, and the majority of his nominations are successful. Either this means Commons standards are too low and everyone votes based on the nominator, or (and I prefer this version) that he is doing good and useful work there. So thanks for that. That said, I am not comfortable with giving ABF 'crat status for several reasons. The first one came to mind in looking through a few recent RfAs, where I have seen some odd votes or comments. For instance, here, I wouldn't consider supporting on the spur of the moment to be the best idea - perhaps he did not do this but that's how it seems, and choosing your words carefully is important, for instance when making complex RfA closes. Also, here I didn't like the fact he clearly did not put much thought into his stance, and changed it soon after How do you turn this on (now Amicon). Additionally, I do not see any evidence that ABF has any experience with bots. Admittedly I'm not as active there as in other 'crat areas, but I'm a crappy 'crat and shouldn't be used as an example. The point is that for a position where there aren't a bucketload of different areas you can work in (as with adminship - see Mike's comment here for an idea of what I'm talking about), I'd like to see a good level of familiarity and competence in all three major areas. For ABF, I am unsure in two of them, and on that basis I oppose. As always I would be happy to have my mind changed by some convincing evidence. Giggy (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ABFbot is the bot of ABF (with bot-flag, active since nearly two years). -- Cecil (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also have got a bot on commons ;) Btw. you might like to read Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes/ABF (bureaucrat) ;) Thank you for your oppinnion in any case :) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 13:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kicks self. Sorry, I wasn't aware you had a bot here (or didn't remember it at the time), but I was thinking more along the lines of bot approvals. It's not complex or a huge deal but showing your existence there every now and then would be cool. Thanks also for the pointer to the talk page. I do agree that more 'crats wouldn't hurt right now. I just don't think you're the right person for the job at the moment. Sorry. Giggy (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Bureaucrat work is a little different from admin work, that is true. But in most cases it simply is a counting of votes and then fullfilling the community consense or checking the contributions of two users and for the possiblity of a SUL collision before doing a renaming or usurp (also usually ask for more confirmation first). These two things are in my opinion more simple than most of the admin work. In the few month that I'm a bureaucrat we only had three situations which were not simple and in all three cases we had a short or not so short discussion of all active bureaucrats. None of these scenarios (all in the admin/deadmin-section) were decided by only one bureaucrat alone so I actually don't think that people need to feel a discomfort when it comes to admin-elections. If the community consense is not perfectly clear it was and will never be done by just one of us. Since ABF is already a lot in this section (de-adminship of inactive admins is more or less organized by him alone, a lot of admins were his suggestion, ...) I don't think that there will be trouble. For bot-work: I know that ABF also sometimes run his own bot, on German.WP this bot has the bot-flag and since a few weeks also sighting-rights. -- Cecil (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • positive: hard worker, the personal development in the las time was positive, the most he does was OK (as far as I can say, people who do a lot will make mistakes - but it's often better tahn making nothing). negative: he likes "to be someone" here, he's fast with descisions, he's actually in development. But, Crat isn't a big jump from admin. I'm shure, he will grow with his tasks. I would give an oppose for a job like Oversight or Checkuser. Here with a lot of assume good faith and a lot of good will I  Support him. I understand every support and every oppose. Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose To me, the most important characteristic of a bureaucrat must be his moral authority, his ability to lead to compromises and acceptable solutions, make the people converge to a team. And I have not seen that really. --Foroa (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, but if promoted, please prepare to discuss with other bureaucrats while we sometimes email to discuss some bureaucrat tasks, such as whether someone should be promoted in a borderline case.--Jusjih (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment First, this pains me, because I have a great deal of respect for ABF, I've worked with him on various matters and I like his approach to things. He's also a genuinely friendly and nice guy. I also want to acknowledge ABF's deep and abiding dedication to Commons, I think he tries very hard to "get" the Commons way of doing things... he cares about Commons, you can tell. He's often contacted me or other 'crats with matters that needed serious and thoughtful action. Further, he's a very hard worker who gets stuff done. He gets a lot of credit in my book for that. So why isn't this a ringing support? Because, (with all due respect to Majorly and others) on Commons, 'crat isn't "no big deal". It's not a HUGE deal, but it IS a "medium" deal... 'crats need to be thought leaders, to be respected, to be regarded as thoughtful. And I think ABF just isn't quite ready yet. I want all our 'crats to feel they trust each other... with Bastique and Giggy expressing reservations, that suggests to me that, fairly or unfairly, the time is not yet right. Soon, I hope, but not just yet. ABF needs to work to build the trust I have in him (and Cecil has in him, and Jusjih has in him) among the rest of the 'crats first. I think it's eminently doable but I cannot yet support. Therefore I'm commenting but not supporting. ABF, hang in there. And... I'm really sorry we didn't link up when you were looking for me. I bet this is what you wanted to talk about. ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Trusted and trustable user. And I confirm that being a 'crat is no biggie. Popo le Chien ouah 08:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I keep looking at this one & wondering what to say & my views have changed a time or two. In the end & for now at least I'm going to  Comment like Lar (we do often agree on things). Reviewing what has been said above I find myself agreeing with two consecutive (& different) votes. Marcus's comments make sense & I respect his views & have found them worthwhile in the past. However I have to say exactly the same about Foroa's view & vote too. To me 'crat is about people who are active in the community - ABF is and is far more active than some other people who hold on to rights here. Equally 'crat is about people who set an example to the community in both action & judgements - I am not convinced that ABF is quite at that stage yet. The closing 'crat/'crats are welcome to ignore my comments unless I manage to step off the fence! --Herby talk thyme 10:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  مع. Giggy, supporting my RfA isn't a crime.--OsamaK 14:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There remains nothing I can add to the excellent rationale given by User:Mike.lifeguard above. — Aitias // discussion 18:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I do not refuse to and if you'd like me to add them so much, I'll do so. :) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done: here abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 18:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd hope the opposers above would provide some proper arguments for not allowing ABF to be promoted. "I have a bad feeling" tells us nothing about anything. Please expand. And by the way, bureaucratship is not a big deal, and it's sad that people are promoting the idea that it is. Majorly talk 21:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that you may not accept the already given explanations (which in most oppose votes were quite long, actually), but to extrapolate that to "people are promoting the idea that [bureaucratship is a big deal]" is a tad too much, no? ABF was certainly more gracious about those oppose votes. Patrícia msg 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • They may be long, but they lack substance. When one opposes, it should be for a good reason. It should show how the user isn't suited to the position. All I see above is "I don't think he's mature enough" or "Not enough good judgement" (no evidence) or "We have better candidates" or "I have to oppose him" (no reason). Bastique also expects him to ask current bureaucrats. That's silly, we don't ask admins if we want to nominate someone for that. Why is bureaucratship so special? In short, all three opposes tell us nothing about how ABF would make a bad bureaucrat. None of them provide diffs, examples, or evidence. All three are wishy-washy, vague, and don't explain. Bastique's in particular does not even say why he opposes, just that he does. This is of course a very bad thing. People can claim all they like that this is a lovely relaxed project where people all get along with one another. But this sort of thing is simply poisoning the well, and to those who hate enwiki RFAs, well, Commons is just the same. Majorly talk 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasoning which I alluded to in my comments (and I suspect Bastique's reasoning is similar if not identical) is simply that I'd prefer to avoid making public statements which could be embarassing or hurtful to the candidate. Creating unnecessary interpersonal conflict isn't a good thing - one hopes of course that the candidate can take any criticism in the spirit in which it was given and no problems will arise. However, bad blood can be created in situations such as this. I would have advised ABF privately of my opinions, and perhaps my assessment of how others might react to a nomination, which might have resulted in a better outcome than if the nomination fails and ABF takes it personally. Again, I hope that outcome does not come to pass, but that's at least the reasoning behind my suggestion (rather than the straw man you're ridiculing). This isn't an RFC or something - I don't want to go dig up diffs (or whatever) to paint a clear picture of why ABF would make a bad bureaucrat. Giggy has pointed out some of the sort of thing I find objectionable - heaping on examples isn't needed unless the point is to hurt the candidate, which is most certainly isn't.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsubstantiated claims are just as damaging in my opinion. You're creating bad blood just by opposing. If your oppose is a fair one, so be it. Not everyone is suited. But the point is, nobody knows because nothing you say is backed up, and is just your say-so. And I am unsure how ABF is supposed to take this other than personally. You are opposing him on his nomination. How else is he supposed to take it? You're evaluating him, and no one else.
    Giggy has indeed provided examples, which is why I have no issue whatsoever with his oppose. Majorly talk 02:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After your blog "Template RFA opposes", Whiteknight left some comments, which were then expanded in "RFA Success". For those who haven't yet, this back-and-forth makes good reading. Whiteknight and I are both bureaucrats on English Wikibooks, which actually does use the idealized RFA process to a greater extent than any other wiki I have visited. The role bureaucrats play on English Wikibooks is the role bureaucrats are supposed to play on all wikis, including Commons. The extent to which we count votes is, in my opinion, the extent to which bureaucrats and the community more generally are failing. In keeping with the idealized view of bureaucrats, I simply don't see any evidence that ABF meets the criteria I wish to see. ABF is a strident voice in blocking discussions (for example, with respect to Mbz1 recently), is often too quick to take action when further consideration is in order (for example, with respect to Gryffindor's de-adminship), and is headstrong generally. Perhaps I shouldn't have accepted this dance with Majorly. I feel I've said enough.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine, thanks for explaining. I actually understand why you're opposing now. Before I hadn't a clue why, and may have been supporting without knowing full facts. Surely with your view of bureaucrats, you would have explained properly in the first place though? Your oppose says nothing really other than you don't think he has the best judgement - surely a bureaucrat would ignore a vague statement like that on Books? Or am I off the trail here. Majorly talk 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first attempt he is doing this on Jimbo's talk. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo's page gets a lot of traffic. Looks like you removed it? [1] ++Lar: t/c 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/ABF_2&oldid=66955845"