Meta:Requests for bureaucratship/Billinghurst

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

Billinghurst[edit]

Billinghurst (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.

Could I please get a couple of other crats to confirm that I am an active user of meta wiki and have been active for more than six months at this wiki. Noting that I have been active on this wiki for about 7 years, and an administrator for 6 years, and held other trusted rights on this wiki, and still of good standing. @MF-Warburg and MarcoAurelio: noting that I need two crats and lo and behold we are down to two! <ouch> — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please create a subpage? In the past 'crat endorsements were made right there. And thanks for the nomination I have too realised the situation, and I don't like it. --Base (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me why exactly you are asking for these rights and what means lo and behold? Stryn (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lo and behold" is somewhat archaic. It means "surprise", almost "you should look". --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 13:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:lo and behold apologies Stryn, it is just an expression and it is only when used and not comprehended does one realise that use can be localised. And when I think of its origins, often more associated with nautical nations, especially for long distance travel. Re why the application. Simply, we need more 'crats, and our method of appointment requires that we require more than two. We have not appointed anyone in more than three years and over that time our numbers have dwindled. Relying on people who are already our stewards to be our 'crats is not a good idea, 1) generally when stewards resign they drop many rights, 2) concentration of tasks and roles in the hands of a few is not desirable. When people simultaneously holding are crat/oversight/checkuser roles simultaneously, no matter how trusted, it makes me uncomfortable. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking this morning that I should encourage some people to run for bureaucratship. While MF-W and myself are doing just fine (oh dear, yes, blatant self-promo), it won't hurt a couple of active administrators to become bureaucrats. Yes, the situation is not optimal. Billinghurst is active so I have no concerns in that area. However, there's a relative peace in how bureaucrat stuff is being handled (waiting periods are respected, permissions ain't granted without waiting some time generally, etc.). Billinghurst, are you committed to follow that and discuss with your fellow bureaucrats or the community at large seeking consensus to change established practices? I ask this because while we all can have different opinions, I expect some sort of uniform criteria between the bureaucrats in our "job". Thank you. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will follow the guidance set by the community for the evaluation and assignation of permissions. If something is contentious, then I will consult with my colleagues and the community. Where I have a conflict or vested of interest I will recuse myself, or note that particular interest to the community or colleagues. If I think that the existing guidance/policy is an issue then I will follow established means to raise and discuss such matters with the community. All of these points, I would say, is the process I undertake as a matter of practice, the role is to act on community consensus`. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Billinghurst. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat endorsement. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was asked to comment, therefore I want to make clear that I don't endorse this request. Very often Billinghurst's comments are incomprehensible to me, written in such a way that I can't distinguish if it contains grammatical mistakes or just a very sophisticated way of writing English. Sorry! Normally I wouldn't have written this, but for this reason I would prefer him to not be a bureaucrat who closes discussions with such comments as those which can be read on this page. --MF-W 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that Billinghurst too often interjects his own opinions rather than following policy or consensus or respecting others' opinions, and thus I have to Oppose. I am also unhappy with the grandstanding/passive-aggressive behavior as shown for example here and condescending behavior here; if you have something to say, then say something. --Rs chen 7754 00:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can one respond to this? I inject my opinion? Yet, if I have something to say, then say something. Rschen7754: I respect your opinion and your right to have an opinion, though I may or may not agree with your opinion. I also let other people's opinion stand as its own testament without trying to label it. This is the thing about opinion, it varies, it is personal based on knowledge and experience. Respecting opinion is allowing it to be heard and not being condemned for it; nor being shut down for having one where it is within the bounds of decency and within scope.
Further, please show where I do not follow consensus, nor follow policy? I would say that the two examples that you point to are me asking for policy to be followed, in that we should use the global bans policy over a steward's decision (something on which I have a strong belief since c.2009.) I do not see how that correlates with determining a consensus as a 'crat and assigning rights to users. I believe that I have demonstrated the ability to separate my opinion when determining the consensus of the community, and to following the policy as set by this and other communities. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: asking for your own interpretation of policy to be followed. I could dig up issues from your steward term, but considering that this request is already going to fail I don't think it would be productive. The issue I had in the first link was that you were implying things about certain stewards and certain locks without being direct, which led to an unproductive discussion. And lecturing me about sharing my impressions that I got of my fellow stewards in the second link was completely inappropriate (in that case, I chose my words carefully to reflect that it was my point of view). --Rs chen 7754 06:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatelly I have to mark this request as unsuccessful as per Meta:Bureaucrats policy. The speedy promotion rule cannot be applied here because we lack two bureaucrat endorsements and objections have been raised by MF-Warburg and Rschen7754. While it is true that the validity of the concerns have to be validated, this cannot happen or be done by an uninvolved bureaucrat since the two bureaucrats of this project have commented here, one not endorsing the request. Should Billinghurst still want to become a bureaucrat, a new RfB should be opened, which will then be governed by the rules of RfA as per point 3 of the appointment section of the policy in fine. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.