Usernamekiran (talk | contribs) →General comments: cmt Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Menei Tekel (talk | contribs) →Oppose: comment |
||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
=====Oppose===== |
=====Oppose===== |
||
# Wikipedia does not need more crats. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
# Wikipedia does not need more crats. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
#: See [[Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats]]. [[User:Menei Tekel|Menei Tekel]] ([[User talk:Menei Tekel|talk]]) 20:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=====Neutral===== |
=====Neutral===== |
Revision as of 20:12, 8 June 2022
Lee Vilenski
(talk page) (35/1/0); Scheduled to end 16:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination
Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – It is my honor to present Lee Vilenski to you for consideration as a bureaucrat. I believe that if you examine his record, as I have, you will find he possesses the characteristics and experience we want from our crats. Namely a rock solid grasp of policy and guidelines, great skill in finding consensus across a variety of discussions, and the ability to write closes for controversial topics that gain acceptance. Making something contentious into something boring is something I've seen Lee do well, including in his closes for deprecating Fox News and more recently in closing this discussion which had its original close overturned on review. Lee displays his understanding of policies, guidelines, and procedures through his incredible accomplishment on the content side as well, having won the WikiCup once and twice been the runner-up. He has written more than two dozen featured articles and over a hundred good articles. Lee is, in my mind, highly qualified for the position and would also, if elected, become the crat whose account registration was newest and who has the most recent RfA (currently Primefac holds both these marks having registered in 2010 and RFA'd in 2017). Better decision are made when groups consider diverse perspectives and Lee would bring the perspective of someone who came to Wikipedia during a more recent era. I hope you join me in supporting his nomination for bureaucrat. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Co Nomination
It is a rare occasion that we are able to consider the nomination of a new bureaucrat, so I am humbled to be able to co-nominate Lee Vilenski. Lee has been with our community for a few years now, exemplifying the best that the community can produce, even though he's only been with us about 5 years. During that time, he has consistently demonstrated his understanding of policy, his ability to make good judgements and most importantly, he's demonstrated a definite lack of controversy.
We've had recent discussions about our bureaucrats, a group which considers me a "newbie", despite being on the encyclopedia for 14 years. We're long in the tooth as a group, and we need people who represent the present shape of the encyclopedia. I would personally be proud to be represented by Lee. WormTT(talk) 15:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the above nomination, and look forward to any questions that may occur. Thank you all for taking time to look at my nomination. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
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: I have read through Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship as well as previous RfAs, especially when they have led to a cratchat to become familiar with the procedure. All discussions are different, but a general rule of thumb of above 75% support confirms confidence in an RfA candidate, whilst below 65% suggest there isn't a consensus to promote. RfAs that fall in between that range need additional eyes. Of course if consensus is not clear, at any percentage or if something specifically controversial arises, then a crat chat can be called. Bureaucrats give an individual assessment of the discussion, whether they believe there is consensus or no consensus to promote the user to admin.
- 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
- A: In all likelihood, all RfAs are a bit contentious due to their nature. When closing a contentious or close discussion it is important that the close gives a well thought out and well written closing rationale. It is important that we give a detailed, methodical (but also distinct and to the point) response when closing an RfA either way, as it gives users who have participated answers to the close. Even if a user disagrees with the result, a well written rationale will help give respect to the result.
- 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 have closed and participated in many high profile discussions. I have spent some time being involved on panels for closing, such as the recent proposed changes to the RfA format and the deprecation of Fox News as a source. I have a reputation for respecting policy based arguments and attempting to keep our articles in line with our wider MOS. Even as a new member of the community I was highly involved with the removal of FANCRUFT in the form of move-lists on professional wrestling articles, and also more recently on the overhaul of non-accesible tables across reality television articles, and improving the quality of our cue sports articls (where I've significantly contributed to over 25 featured items). As a mostly content creation user, I am aware there are places on the site where I am not familiar. If I am commenting on something, I will use my own knowledge, but also supplement with relevant policies and guidelines. A high-level discussion, such as ones with a closing committee, require much more careful understanding of the policies involved. I don't know all of the policies on the site (I doubt many do), but I always read them if I'm ever linked to a new one that I'm not familiar with.
- Optional question from ToBeFree
- 4. How is your closure of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Proposals#Closed:_8B_Admin_elections an example of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community?
Discussion
- Links for Lee Vilenski: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Lee Vilenski can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski has been one of our best administrators since his RfA in 2020 and has shown great aptitude for managing challenging situations. It's a delight to be able to support his RfB. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- per nominations and KevinL above. firefly ( t · c ) 16:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support Elli (talk | contribs) 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support of course. A very solid record of content creation and closing discussions wisely. Why not? –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support will be a great addition to the bureaucrat team. We certainly need the perspective of editors who joined more recently, and I support and know that Lee Vilenski will do a good job. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support - the crat position is an odd one, because most of the time it doesn't involve anything other than the occasional flipping of a bit. When contentious or close RFAs do come along however, such as the one we saw recently, the crats come into their own, and to be honest I think they do a very good job of it. As such, adding new members to the team from time to time seems a good idea, and I can't imagine a finer candidate than Mr Vilenski. I mostly know him through his excellent work on snooker articles, and he's clearly a very experienced and well-respected editor, so happy to support. — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support Smart capable editor and admin. I feel Lee would be an excellent addition to the bureaucrat team. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support as clearly capable of and having the mindset for the role. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Naleksuh (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Wikipedia does need more crats. As exemplified in the Tamzin RFA crat chat, Wikipedia is desperately in need of crats that reflect the current makeup, mindset and culture of the Wikipedia editorial and admin corps. --WaltCip-(talk) 17:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support Obviously Lee is capable, as well set out by BK49. I then focus on @Pppery:'s point on whether we needs more 'Crats. The issue isn't that we really need more 'crats in total - no doubt they're correct on that. But I would encourage them to consider the other aspects - cratship is an extremely static pool. The vast majority of 'crats have held the admin right for at least half a decade. Most for appreciably longer. In the same way that arbcom could function with fewer arbs (maybe even function smoother) but having more helps ensure a range of viewpoints is provided, thus too, the crat corps would benefit from Lee's presence. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support I think it is healthy to have new 'crats and new candidates step forward on a regular basis (to reflect changes in the makeup, mindset and culture of the community). Strong candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely no concerns about Lee in this role. -- ferret (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- support more the merrier. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support Armbrust The Homunculus 17:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Support If this is a nomination by Barkeep49, I seriously have no questions left to ask. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Co Nom WormTT(talk) 17:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support: the pool of crats we have, in aggregate, have far too old join dates to properly represent the community. Lee Vilenski has the temperament, experience and skills needed to be a crat, and would be the only one to have joined Wikipedia post-2010, I believe. Lee Vilenski has a five-year history of showing incredible dedication to the project, in both content work and behind-the-scenes pages, and I have seen no issues with their use of admin rights. — Bilorv (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support Yes, yes, a million times yes. Incredibly cordial and level-headed, has a great grasp of Wikipedia's policies. Dedicated to the project. Checks every box and more. — GhostRiver 17:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support Experienced, helpful, and not reckless or aggressive. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support Per noms, in the rare occurrence of a crat' chat, the more the merrier, as well as people who represent the Wikipedia of today. Sea Cow (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support Lee Vilenski seems very competent and experienced. I think he will be a fantastic steward and leader. You have my full support, and I wish you only continued success. PaulPachad (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support New blood is needed on the 'crat team, and I'm confident Lee is a good choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support No concerns with Lee for this role, I think they'll do well in it. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I mostly know this editor from their work in guiding numerous articles through FAC and their even more numerous thorough, sympathetic and informed reviews there; purely on this basis I am more than happy to support their nomination for 'cratship. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support. While I haven't really interacted with the candidate, the nomination by Barkeep helped to put me in this camp. Good to have another person available for mediation in contentious RFAs. Rollidan (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I respect and trust Lee. BOZ (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support There is no reason for concern. --Victor Trevor (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support No concerns from me. I respect and look up to Lee and I'm sure he would make a great bureaucrat. Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 19:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid candidate; has what it takes to make a good crat. Schwede66 19:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support I have had many positive interactions with this user and have no concerns. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Concerning the issue of "need," perhaps we do not "need" one or more new bureaucrats to ensure that RfAs are timely closed, given the sadly limited number of RfAs we have had in recent years. But no Wikipedia task or process benefits from being run by a closed-ended group of more senior editors, without any periodic intake of new blood. The bureaucrats find themselves in the spotlight only when there is a debatable RfA closing resulting in a 'crat chat; and at those times, it would be good to have at least one relatively fresh-faced person participating in the discussion, even if he is not going to spend the bulk of the rest of his wiki-time 'cratting. I find the "need," or at least desirability, of having at least one new bureaucrat compelling from that standpoint, and I have no concerns about the candidate himself, so I find this an easy support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Maybe we aren't in dire need of 'crats now, but let's not get complacent – we will need more at some point. When trusted, qualified, capable editors like Lee Vilenski step up, we shouldn't miss our chance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Of course. Lee is a wonderfully level-headed and reasonable editor and I see no reason that he shouldn't be a crat. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
- Wikipedia does not need more crats. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats. Menei Tekel (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Neutral
General comments
- Pppery On what do you base that assessment? Do you at least concede that they are qualified for the role? 331dot (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I base that assessment on the fact that there is no backlog of undone crat work piling up. I need not evaluate whether they are qualified, since the above is a near-absolute principle that supersedes the need for an individual evaluation. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know about Ppperry but I found that from May 1, 2021 to April 30, 2022 crats have:
- Given the bot flag to 11 bots and removed it from 17
- Re-granted intadmin to 3 and removed it from 1
- (Re-)Granted sysop to 14, removed it from 64, and closed an additional 3 RfAs as unsuccessful
- Granted 1 simultaneous resysop and recrat
- That is a total of 114 actions over a year. By way of comparison, there were 115 user right actions from admins between April 27 and April 30. So I think there's an argument to be made. However, the community in discussions about this seemed reluctant/opposed to give up the role of crat and so while we have the role I think it appropriate we add good people and obviously I think Lee is that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this. If people want a change to how the crat system works, or maybe to limit their numbers or something, then propose that through an RFC in the right venue and gain consensus. But until then, the system is the one the community has chosen and I don't think it's fair on a particular individual to oppose their RFB because you disagree with an aspect of the way crats operate. — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pppery Since an individual is being discussed here I think comments about said individual are a necessity. If you feel we don't need more bureaucrats you should start an RFC to foreclose future nominations until some set criteria is met. Just my 2 cents. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- By opposing this RfB I indicate that I do not think Lee Vilenski should become a bureaucrat. Because I hold that belief it would be improper to not formally indicate it. The existing crats are free to give my opinion whatever weight they feel it deserves when they close this RfB, but I will not yield to the pressure to back down and declare that my generalized grievances are not worthy of consideration by them. (In other words, this line of argument can possibly convince me to withdraw by oppose !vote) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, you have indicated that you don't want more bureaucrats, which is fine, but that's not the issue under discussion here. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- ...whether to add another crat is not the issue under discussion here? Levivich 18:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- This discussion is not about the general principle of adding more crats, but about whether a particular user is qualified to be one. If they meet the criteria, they should be given the tools. If anyone wants to put a cap on the number of crats, or foreclose new nominations, those are different issues. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- It does seem to me that if someone believes there is no need for any more crats, then an oppose vote is a fair and obvious logical consequence of that. I don't really see why people voting oppose in these discussions always seem to get immediately jumped on, when they generally give more cogent reasons for their votes than most of the support voters do. (Just an observation from someone who never normally participates and has no opinion in the present matter.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- This discussion is not about the general principle of adding more crats, but about whether a particular user is qualified to be one. If they meet the criteria, they should be given the tools. If anyone wants to put a cap on the number of crats, or foreclose new nominations, those are different issues. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- ...whether to add another crat is not the issue under discussion here? Levivich 18:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, you have indicated that you don't want more bureaucrats, which is fine, but that's not the issue under discussion here. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- By opposing this RfB I indicate that I do not think Lee Vilenski should become a bureaucrat. Because I hold that belief it would be improper to not formally indicate it. The existing crats are free to give my opinion whatever weight they feel it deserves when they close this RfB, but I will not yield to the pressure to back down and declare that my generalized grievances are not worthy of consideration by them. (In other words, this line of argument can possibly convince me to withdraw by oppose !vote) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just as a hypothetical question - what would be the disadvantage of Wikipedia having 100, 1,000, really an unlimited number of crats? It's true that a lot of them wouldn't have much to do except flip flags, but if the competence and the ability exist, would not we consider having them simply for those thankless but often times tricky situations that require crat work?--WaltCip-(talk) 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I assume that the fewer there are, the less likely that one of them will freakishly turn bad or mad and do serious damage to Wikipedia. I have no idea what such damage might be, beyond what an ordinary administrator (or user) could perpetrate, but there may well be something. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- They can grant WP:INTADMIN which is a sensitive right. I do not want the es.wp model of bureaucratship near here whatsoever. Izno (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I understand the need to reduce the attack vector. WaltCip-(talk) 18:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do you mind explaining said model? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- In another hypothetical scenario, if a bureaucrat account gets compromised/goes wild, they can remove the bit of all the active admins, and then rest of the admins. But they cant remove bit of other crats, so there's that. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)