Meta:Requests for bureaucratship/Kylu

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Kylu

Support = 36; Oppose = 0; Neutral = 0 - 100.0% - Clear consensus to promote. Promoted ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ended at 02:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Information:

• At least 100 valid contributions on another Wikimedia project: Many thousands, see my userpage for multiple editcounter links.
• At least 100 valid contributions on the Meta-Wiki: Check
• Meta RfA: Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Kylu
• Meta userpage: User:Kylu, with a matrix of links to other projects.
• Read and understood Meta:Bureaucrats: Yep, rather short. I am also already familiar with the various bureaucrat tools.
• Valid contact address: Special:Emailuser/Kylu, active and validated.
• In addition, I'm (sadly, much) older than 18 and have already validated my identity with the Foundation, not that it matters in this case. :)

Statement:

In the upcoming confirmations, a number of Meta bureaucrats will be due for confirmation and will (for obvious reasons) not likely be taking part in the confirmations themselves and others are relatively inactive. While the workload for bureaucrats on Meta isn't stellar, between these two issues, I feel it's in the best interests of the community to have another bureaucrat. As it's nearly impossible to get another sucker to volunteer find another willing bureaucrat candidate, I'm volunteering myself. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good admin - good reasons for wanting to take on the role, and a new face would be good. Kylu is a good choice for this. Majorly (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support sure. Cbrown1023 talk 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support — Excellent admin in many wikis and will be a considerable asset as a bureaucrat here. —Dark ^(talk) 02:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• A favor Mønobi 03:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Det liek mich 'n good veurstèl, because you're a perfect admin. :) --OosWesThoesBes 06:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support --.snoopy.  07:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Yup. --Az1568 08:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 12:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I worry about a candidate who can't format a RfB properly - not that I'm going to oppose.--Poetlister 13:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is the first time an RfB has been done like this from the start. Majorly (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. And Kylu's just made a helpful suggestion about my matrix, so thanks.--Poetlister 18:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Why not Huji 13:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Seems sensible. Adambro 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support --.anaconda 16:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. --Roosa _(Talk) 17:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support --A. B. ^(talk) 00:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Sans souci --Aphaia 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support --FiLiP ¤ 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• A favor Alex Pereira ^falaê 01:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• sure. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• support. --Thogo (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• 100% — VasilievV ² 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• *nod* — Kalan ? 10:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• support —DerHexer (Talk) 16:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Marbot 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• If Meta had a dictionary, the definition of "helpful" would be a redirect to User:Kylu, and the definition of "friendly" would be a redirect to User talk:Kylu. Also per her answers to the questions, below. I very much look forward to having Kylu as a bureaucrat here. Support ++Lar: t/c 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, always appreciate her help. Cary Bass ^demandez 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, lovely and helpful person. Arria Belli | parlami 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Tacaíocht - trustworthy, kind, helpful, excellent knowledge of interwiki policies - Alison ^❤ 05:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Definitely a good choice. Captain panda 02:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Of course. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Absolutely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support from what I've seen. Cowardly Lion 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Mardetanha 22:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Yes, I think Kylu will make a fine bureaucrat. Acalamari 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support to be sure. Joe 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, of course :) krimpet✽ 05:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - before I missed out, :DD ...--Cometstyles 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

• Kylu, do you think, for non emergency situations, it is more important to do things fast, or to do them right? ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  That is a loaded question. If she thinks it is important to do things fast, than doing things fast is doing things "right". :) —{admin} Pathoschild 17:20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  It also depends what "right" is. Majorly (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  That's what I said. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:07:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  Pathoschild, "When it is important to do things fast" is practically equivalent to "emergency situation" (modulo the degree of severity). Hillgentleman 17:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  Pathoschild, it absolutely IS a loaded question, but it's not unanswerable. We have some admins and crats here who have voiced the opinion that speed (in non emergency situations) is more important than following process, than documenting what was done, and so forth, and some that have voiced the opinion that it's rather the other way around. (see, for example Meta_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Do_we_have_enough_meta_admins.3F where A.B. says "I appreciate the existing admins' thoughtful approach. "Slow and correct" is still better than "fast and wrong"" ) I wish to know what Kylu's views on this matter are. I'd also refer you to Commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/PatríciaR_(rfb) where PatriciaR gave a nuanced and thoughtful answer to a similar question I asked there. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sure you're referring to me here (well, it's obvious). When I process requests, I don't do it to be fast. I do it to provide a decent service. If I was to employ a person, I'd expect them to show up on time to work, and complete tasks set for them to do, and if I was a school teacher, I'd expect assignments handed in on time, and for work to be done in the lesson. I don't rush for the sake of rushing, trust me. I don't ignore requests, and turn up late closing RfAs. I haven't asked for links in the past because it was never written on the page. Indeed, when I was promoted, there wasn't a page. Now you've put a note that bcrats should ask for links, I have asked. So, what is your problem with me now? The fact you want absolutely every thing documented confuses me as well... we have a log that documents things perfectly well, and I always explain the reason in the log. Additional stuff is not needed. Majorly (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  Also, there is such a thing as "fast and right". That is what I do. Your definition of right probably differs to mine though. Majorly (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  Majorly: Surprisingly, I asked the question to get Kylu's views on the matter rather than yours, and give her a chance to surface them, rather than positioning it as a comment about you. Oddly enough, not everything on Meta is about you, believe it or not. That said, since you mention it though, I have in the past identified things that I thought were loose ends with requests, and some of them were even ones you agreed that were loose ends, but you did not change your approach, so yes, there are some things where I do differ with you on what "right" is. The best way to resolve those matters is to surface them, and then find out what the consensus of the community is, rather than to spar about them, though, and this is not the place for either. I have every confidence that Kylu will handle things with a thorough approach, documenting all the things that should be documented, and innovating process to make it better. Further I am sure, based on my experience with her in many places in the past, that if there is ever anything where I (or anyone else) have a question or concern, that if I (or anyone else) bring it to her attention, the question or concern will receive a polite, friendly and thorough explanation, without her thinking the person questioning her is "out to get her", "trying to give her a hard time", or whatever. Rather she'll view the question or concern as a chance to improve things here instead of taking it personally. For that reason alone I think she's an excellent 'crat candidate, but I can think of a dozen other reasons if I put my mind to it. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  I was referring to your comment about the bureaucrats ("We have some admins and crats here"). Who else could you be referring to? Majorly (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  Also, I apologise to Kylu for commenting here. It's just I'm fed up with Lar ridiculing me, and I'm not going to sit and watch it happen. It's obvious he is referring to the way I have done things in the past, and it's becoming tiresome. Majorly (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  I think one of the issues here is that you take questions, feedback, comments, and so forth way too personally. Again, I know there is a tension about how much to document, how much process to follow, which different people have different views on, and I was asking Kylu for her views. It really wasn't about you at all, believe it or not. I'm sorry that you take constructive comments as negative criticism, and discussion with others as ridicule of you, but there's not really much I can do about it other than go on about my business. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  Personally, I think the only thing that bureaucrats need to worry about is correct process. While admin tools have some situations arise where speed is of the essence (deletion of personal information, blocking vandals), I see no situations where flagging/unflagging bots, user renames (which obviously leave a log record behind), and promotions can be construed as emergencies at all. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• A practical question: Kylu, How would you have called the result for Aphaia's confirmation? Hillgentleman 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and frankly while I don't like the decision personally, I think that what the bureaucrats did in this case is the only correct decision. We did not have previously established rules regarding suffrage and it's rather not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Kylu, How do you view the notion of bureaucrat's discretion? Hillgentleman 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Warily. In the few situations where the concept arises, as the majority of the decisions on Meta tend to be either unanimous or clear majority with a corresponding and logical consensus, I prefer to look at past cases and try to find a reasonable established precedent to base decisions upon. In the event that an en banc decision is required of the bureaucrats, such as confirmations or if a situation were to arise that had no prior precedent, it's best to deliberate the situation until the best possible outcome has presented itself. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)