Jump to content

User:MBisanz/Qs/RfBCandidate1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfBCandidate1

[edit]
(11/3/2) ends 17:45, 17 December 2099 (UTC)

I have made an accommodation between my administratorial responsibilities and my aspiration to enjoy editing here "just for fun". I am requesting bureaucrat (I can too spell it - if I crib) status for the account User:RfBCandidate1 only. -- RfBCandidate1 17:37, December 10, 2099 (UTC)

Support:

  1. -- Infrogmation 18:11, 10 December 2099 (UTC)~
  2. - →Raul654 18:12, December 10, 2099 (UTC)
  3. - since the day I arrived, RfBCandidate1has been a positive guide for me here, and a model of what a Wikipedia admin ought to be. Jwrosenzweig 18:56, 10 December 2099 (UTC)
  4. - Meelar 20:09, 10 December 2099 (UTC)
  5. - RfBCandidate1would never syosop anyone inappropriately, and that's all this poll is about. --Uncle Ed 20:21, 10 December 2099 (UTC)
  6. Hephaestos|§ 23:46, 10 December 2099 (UTC)
  7. Support. Why is there this inflammatory discussion about "for the account RfBCandidate1 only?" I think that it's good judgment for him to use only one account to edit, and another to administrate... ugen64 00:34, December 12, 2099 (UTC)
  8. support. Perl 01:38, 12 December 2099 (UTC)
  9. cprompt 02:03, 12 December 2099 (UTC)
  10. Support. Elf-friend 18:33, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
  11. But please consider ending your use of User:My real name. Multiple accounts are a bad idea, I think. Kingturtle 05:58, 17 December 2099 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Has demonstrated bad judgement and incoherence. And what does "for the account User:RfBCandidate1 only" mean? How many accounts do you have? --Wik 18:24, December 10, 2099 (UTC)
    • Precisely three. I created User:Nonsysop interface to demonstrate the nonsysop interface to my mother. Recently I created a main account User:My real name to use 99% of the time I edit, so I don't accidentally edit a protected page, so I will only have immediate access to administrative powers when I have consciously decided to assume the responsible stance necessary to fulfill the remit of such powers with integrity, rather than in between making tweaks to articles about the Simpsons. My further intention in creating a regular non-sysop account was to prove that it is physically possible to edit without using sysop powers, and do so productively. -- RfBCandidate1 18:47, December 10, 2099 (UTC)
      • Well, that hardly requires proof. I've been doing so for 8 months and 17,000 edits. And if you want to prove it for yourself, it would mean that you refrain from using the RfBCandidate1 account, but here you say you will use it when you consciously decide to assume the responsible stance etc. It's easy to edit without sysop powers on one account, when you have another account with sysop powers. --Wik 19:10, December 10, 2099 (UTC)
        • So what exactly is the problem with having multiple accounts? Certainly seems reasonable to me... ugen64 21:34, December 17, 2099 (UTC)
  2. Strongly oppose. RfBCandidate1 is erratic and often unreasonable. 172 07:11, 11 December 2099 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Although doubtful. Basically, I respect JHV, but this idea seems hard to comprehend. I think institutionalizing sock-puppets is a particularly bad idea. Although... quite another thing would have been if all sysop-accounts and bureaucrat-accounts as a rule were separate from the officer's ordinary account. I could see a meaning in the distinction between a Angela account and the Angela (admin) account.--Ruhrjung 07:52, 11 December 2099 (UTC)


Neutral/Comment:

  1. Is this something to do with you wanting to desysop yourself? Not that bureaucrats can do that, but your recent behaviour on my talk page worries me about your intentions, particularly after you previously asked on this page to never be made a bureaucrat. I will support once you can allay these concerns. Angela. 19:02, December 10, 2099 (UTC)
    • My wish to edit without sysop priviledges was and remains real. One of the reasons for wishing it to be absolute and irrevocable is amply demonstrated by the above comment by Wik: "It's easy to edit without sysop powers on one account, when you have another account with sysop powers." I was much concerned about Cave trolls comments on the AMA page, and the general tenor of painting our institutions in the worst light. I thought I might have a better podium to defend those institutions if I was not speaking "in my own matter". In an ancillary way I was also very aware that I had not used my sysop features hardly at all for a long time for combating vandalism, or even deleting garbage; and the one time I had actually decided to use them (though I finally balked), it was indeed to block Plautus Satire in a manner I myself later fully realised would have been out of process. When you have dropped your sextant, the article linked thus says it can't be fixed, but only re-certified; and even describes how one would go about doing that. -- RfBCandidate1 19:36, December 10, 2099 (UTC)
    • Are you saying you do only want to be a bureaucrat so you can desysop yourself then? Please can you clarify why you want to be one. Angela. 22:42, December 10, 2099 (UTC)
      • Certes. No I am not going to attempt to desysop myself. If I still intended that, I would now simply self-block RfBCandidate1 till hell freezes over, and continue as User:My real name (or would that block my IP too, hmm...). In a more general sense the instrumentality I envision to both the administrative powers for myself has been and would continue to be a lessening of my shameful feeling for not contributing enough to the daily drudgework at Wikipedia, of which I am the happy beneficiary when I edit just for fun. I frequently feel great discomfort when I have to request something from developers, and the tireless work they do fulfilling such requests amply deserves that we try to pay that forward. Now that I have decided that separate accounts is the way to go, I merely will stand prepared to face comments like Wiks and Ruhrjungs above (I do respect both views BTW; going with two actively used accounts was not a slam-dunk for me either). -- RfBCandidate1 12:54, December 11, 2099 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Support - RfBCandidate1's answer to Wik convinces me that he has the integrity to do the job well. - Texture 18:51, 10 December 2099 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MBisanz/Qs/RfBCandidate1&oldid=336224563"