Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Gwib

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gwib[change source]

Gwib (talk · contribs)

Ended: 16 November

Result: Not promoted (9 support, 13 oppose)

We need another bureaucrat - it's clear that having just two active bcrats simply doesn't cover the requests we get. There is no real reason why every admin shouldn't have bureaucrat rights, since it's worked elsewhere and I would suggest such a thing again, but it would probably look like sour grapes :P As promised, I nominate Gwib: he has been a Wikipedian since early 2007, and an admin since the beginning of this year [1]. He's very active, and can't see why he can't help out further, since it is no big deal whatsoever. Plus, he's friendly and positive, traits that should be every admin/bureaucrat.

Candidate's acceptance:

I am accepting, however, I wish for people to look at this argument I had with Matilda about DYK and sourcing which spread onto the G-spot talk page. It was resolved after I accepted her ideas and proposed a foundation to support both her views and mine and sparked a discussion on DYK talk.
I'm passionate about SEWP, and sometimes don't keep a neutral point of view. However, maybe a backup 'crat for rights changes or a rename or two once a month when other 'crats are away having lives isn't a bad thing. It's hard to screw those up :). --Gwib -(talk)- 06:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps. feel free to oppose, I won't think any differently about any of you, as I was not expecting or had any aspirations to become a 'crat any time soon.

Support[change source]

  1. Support as nominator. Good luck! Majorly talk 22:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of recent actions by Gwib, and even called him out for his wrongful deletion of Manchester. I don't think it particularly respectful to withdraw support on someone you nominated, but unless there's a good explanation here, I'm not sure how much I wish to support anymore, Majorly talk 14:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Gwib and I rarely see eye-to-eye but I think we both have nothing but the best interests of this Wikipedia at heart. He's highly experienced and would not abuse the tools, especially as they're by far the most boring ones...! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I'm currently travelling so will not be using my sysop account for fear of security problems, I hope this vote will still be counted... [reply]
    Absolutely. Best candidate for the job. We need more bureaucrats, and I'm sure Gwib will do his job as a bureaucrat appropriately. I trust his judgement as a bureaucrat. He'll do just fine. – RyanCross (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I have to move to oppose. — RyanCross (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I agree there aren't enough crats. I see no reason why Gwib can't be one. ס Talk 07:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Kennedy (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Don't see any reason why he can't become a 'crat, and we are in need of more, despite some users insisting that we don't. BG7even 09:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support I have the utmost faith n this excellent user, he will use his bureaucratic tools for good and nothing but. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 12:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support First contact with this user as a relatively new editor to Simple was perfect. A good user, someone who has their finger on the "button" and their mind on the job. Crat all the way! Iceflow (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support; an amazing editor, and one of the (three?) people on Wikimedia I would trust implicitly, without a doubt. Only questions I now have to ask to Gwib are: a) Can you spell "bureaucrat" and b) There are 69,105 ____ (complete the sentence) Go on! Get that reference! MC8 (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. No :( 2. Leaves in the pile. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - We need more bureaucrats. Gwib would do the job right. Techman224Talk 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I'll keep it neutral until I hear something from gwib....The life of brian (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support So here's my £0.02. Gwib is an excellent editor and an experienced administrator. He's had experience in areas like RfDs, where he has to make closures based on consensus. Gwib's statement -- that he couldn't always remain neutral -- gave me a rather long pause for thought, because neutrality is often a big part of closing RfX discussions...! However, from what I've seen, he will make closes neutrally, just like he has done until now. That particular DYK discussion is not really an issue for me; there are varying views on the idea of censorship, so it's a sitewide debate rather than an individual issue. If this passes, I would suggest Gwib works his way into bureaucratship; most of the time they're a simple issue, but I advise consultation with other 'crats (yes, there is no harm in 'crat discussions, despite the controversy on enwiki in particular) in the close-call cases. In all, though, most renames and bot-flaggings are very easy, and I can only say that Gwib will get bored with these new tools! ;) Best of luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    :# Support per giggy. Synergy 20:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)striking sarcastic !vote[reply]
  9. Support. Good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

  1. I can't support a candidate who freely admits he can't always "keep a neutral point of view". I was also not impressed by his comments (both the content, and the way he worded them) at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Flying Spaghetti Monster 2#Comments. Comments made as such seem to come all too often from Gwib, in my opinion (even his nominator thinks he is a bit immature sometimes), and I'm not certain he would make a calm and rational bureaucrat because of this. Sorry. Giggy (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - per my last oppose. There is no need for another one (yet). It just wouldn't be fair to Majorly if I support you. Chenzw  Talk  13:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course we need another, there's always something that needs doing, despite Creol's ridiculous claims to the contrary. And trust me, I wouldn't be the slightest bit offended if you supported Gwib instead of me (I nominated him). There's no question of "fairness" here. Majorly talk 13:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose - Per giggy. Yotcmdr (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Per giggy.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  18:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong oppose - I agree Giggy has expressed the concerns I have very well. I am not convinced Gwib is a sufficiently mature enough editor to be provided with additional tools - as Eptalon said this is about trust to a greater degree than adminship as undoing actions is much harder and there are fewer people ina position to review. As per Chenzw, I am not convinced we need another bureaucrat just yet and thus my threshhold for consideration of the nomination is perhaps higher than it might otherwise have been. --Matilda (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to strong oppose - the closure of this AfD seems quite bizarre given 5 !votes in favour of deletion and on 3 in favour of keeping. It may be that keep closure was reasonable, the problem I have is that Gwib did not explain his closure. He did not even use an edit summary when closing!?!--Matilda (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I can't support someone who has issues with neutral points of view in a position like this. Things done by a crat can't easily be fixed. -Djsasso (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Matilda. The diff shows a lack of judgment. I don't care about your maturity level, or taking sides on issues because everyone does that. What matters most is being impartial when the situation calls for impartiality. The things I look for in a crat are: trust; neutrality or good judgment, and at least %50 of the knowledge of how the tools should work. It just so happens good judgment is something you need to work on before another RfB. Synergy 23:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose - per Matilda. Your closure of the RFD, at least, without any explanation as to the closure, concerns me as to how you will judge consensus at an RFA. Do I know that you will explain a closure of an RFA that was close? Right now, the answer is no. I previously supported because I saw no reason not to support. I'm afraid I now have reservations about your potential bureaucratship and for this reason must express my opposition. ס Talk 23:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Switched from support. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Gwib as an editor, but the recent deletionclosure of the template deletion discussion without a valid reason (and apparently against consensus) is a big red flag. After all, 'crats have to make their decisions known clearly in the event of close-call closes. Secondly because of this rather bizarre deletion of Manchester, which was apparently a completely fine and valid article. I think it's a bad time for 'cratship, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't support in the future. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - to clarify two things - the template was kept not deleted, my point was about closing the AfD to keep against apparent consensus and without explanation. Manchester was deleted with rationale QD A3 which seems to be WP:QD#A3 that there has been a discussion at RfD. --Matilda (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry. Late night editing=bad; I've struck the deletion bit. I meant close of the deletion discussion. The article did not go through RfD, and in any case, does not meet the A3 criteria at all; it is nothing like en:Manchester. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose - I was contemplating supporting you, but because of some of your recent actions (per above), and your constant fighting for and over your Wikiproject related articles, I have decided to oppose. Perhaps we do need another Bureaucrat, but I can't bring myself the trust to support you right now. I'm very sorry, Gwib. -- American Eagle (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak oppose I'm sorry, but I'm opposing per Giggy. SwirlBoy39 04:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose – Moved from support. The opposes are too concerning to me, so I can't support at the moment. If you improve from your mistakes and if you show us you have greater judgement, I'll definitely support in the future. Great job as an administrator though. — RyanCross (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak oppose Sorry Gwib, seriously, not now. :( Perhaps next time.-- Tdxiang 06:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

The need for a third active 'crat, as mentioned in the first line, was what I thought the reason was. As well as the others mentioned by Kennedy above. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Hello, all. I am one of the two active 'crats; I think while we do not need a third one urgently, it would be nice to have one, at times. In theory, all users can vote in elections; in practice the closing 'crat often does not (his opinion will be reflected in how he handles the closing). This rule is not cut in stone, but we often observe it. So before you vote, please keep in mind that 'cratship is about trust, more than anything; unlike admins, crats can do things that need stewards to be undone (promotions). If you indeed think we need a third (actually fifth) crat, please spend a thought on who the possible candidates for this position might be, and which ones can indeed get the 75% support needed. --Eptalon (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Gwib&oldid=1172866"