requests For Bureaucratship/Linuxbeak 2

Linuxbeak (talk · contribs)

Hi everyone, it's Linuxbeak again. Back in September, Andre poked me on IRC to run for bureaucrat, so I gave it a whirl. I was not given a consensus on the grounds that I wasn't experienced enough, but virtually every vote said "come back once you have six months of adminship and then reapply". Well, It's been six months. A little about me: I have been using Wikipedia for at least a couple of years. I started editing anonymously from school about two years ago, and I was finally compelled to join as a registered user on March 12, 2005. Like everyone else, I made some of the expected newbie mistakes, but I also learned quickly how to do things "the Wikipedia way". As a way of saying thanks to Wikipedia, I completely overhauled the Civil Air Patrol article, and with some effort and dedication (thanks in no small part to Bishonen), I sucessfully nominated the article to FA status. Just before I hit three months as a Wikipedia editor, User:AntonioMartin nominated me to the post of administrator, and on June 6, 2005, I was elected in. Shortly thereafter, on June 20, 2005, I was given channel operator permissions for the Wikipedia IRC channel, #wikipedia. On August 29, 2005, I started doing minor auxiliary development of Mediawiki. Right now, I'm up for adminship on Meta, and I have volunteered my time and energy for the upcoming Wikimania conference in Boston. Hope to see you all there. ;-)

The reason why I am running now and not when I originally planned on re-running was because I have realized that I am not an article editor so much as I am an administrator... an "officer", if you would. I find that I am doing way more in terms of helping the project and the community instead of editing articles. The reason why I'm running for bureaucrat is because we need more bureaucrats. Bureaucrat Pakaran himself stated that they are seriously understaffed. Looking at the amount of RFA requests that we are now getting, we need more people to keep up with the bureaucrat backlog. We need more bureaucrats, and I'm willing to do the job.

I am community driven and dedicated. I am concerned with the wellbeing of our community members, and I have recently dedicated over an entire day's worth of time and effort defending a few of our administrators from libel and slander. You may find my efforts here.

Before you vote, I am respectfully asking you to consider your rationale. Before you vote oppose saying "we don't need any more bureaucrats", how about you ask Pakaran? :-) Plus, as previously stated, I'm community driven and I want to help.

Thank you for your time and your vote. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support. He'll be good. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Slower-than-evilphoenix Support! Would be a GREAT bcrat! --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 02:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support We need more bereaucrats--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. His clear, well-written, conflict-defusing response to PJ shows that he is level-headed and has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. rspeer 02:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support, very dedicated admin, perfect for bureaucrat. Bishonen | talk 02:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Great editor, great admin, and I'm sure he'll be a great bureaucrat, he has more than proven his merit and he's definitely a good canidate. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Very strong support - Linuxbeak is a superb example of a Wikipedian: He is smart, polite, well-liked, and most certainly has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. --mav 02:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yes - SEVEN-time edit conflict! Need more bureaucrats seems to be an understatement. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Sounds good. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Absolutely. He's one of our best. karmafist 02:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support, there's really nothing to say that hasn't already been said. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Curse with the job of bureaucrat. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, even headed, advocate of good (not evil). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Jkelly 02:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support, I doubt he would abuse this position. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 02:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support --Duk 03:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. support --Linuxbeak would be a very good bureaucrat, I'd think. Grutness - talk - 03:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support, he's well qualified. I'm not voting for him just because of his intervention in the perverted-justice incident, but I'd like to publically commend him for that here.-gadfium 03:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Sure! --King of All the Franks 04:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support, we need more bureaucrats. — JIP | Talk 05:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - if you look at the first page of the list of all accounts ever registered on Wiki, you'll see numerous account names that say just plain horrible things about this editor. Ergo, he has been good enough to upset vandals, which is a good thing, and yet he has not used his admin powers to smite evildoers vastly out of proportion to their evildoing. Also, we need more bureaucrats. bd2412 T 06:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It doesn't hurt to have more bureaucrats. And Linuxbeak is one of the people I'd most trust as a bureaucrat. It's not a matter of IRC sockpuppeting so much as the users on IRC know and trust Linuxbeak, and when he announced his intentions, I'm sure many of them turned out right away to register their support. Ral315 (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strong support. the wub "?!" 13:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support A bureaucrat-candidate with a high standard (80%)?! Well, although I don't think we need more b'crats, I can support on that basis. Xoloz 15:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - Anybody who pisses vandals off as badly as Linuxbeak seems to have pissed off somebody, while simultaneously avoiding pissing off any legitimate contributors, seems to have the Right Stuff(tm) for Bureacratship. AS IF THAT WEREN'T ENOUGH (and you'd certainly think it would be), Linuxbeak has taken at least two very active vandals (one of whom was responsible for creating the raft of anti-Linuxbeak usernames which can be seen at list of all accounts ever registered on Wiki) and brought them back into the Wikipedia fold where they have become, if not model Wikipedians, then at least constructive contributors. This statesman-like mentorship of two previously malicious users speaks highly of Linuxbeak's dedication to the core principles of Wikipedia, and should be an example for all Bureaucrats and Admins to follow. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support 100% No question about it! Tony the Marine 15:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
27. ZOMG IRC CABAL!!1!one! Support, of course - David Gerard 15:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Personally, I have no issue with someone letting others know that they are up for a vote. He'll be a great bureaucrat and we need more of them, especially ones who love doing the admin stuff at Wiki English. --Alabamaboy 16:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, think he'll be just fine at doing this job and some new blood can't hurt. Dan100 (Talk) 17:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support why not? Izehar (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
31. Strongly Support, very responsable and serious collaborator, a proven expert in aviation as well. Antonio Marine 1 Martin 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support as per David Gerard :P --Wikiacc (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
33. El_C 23:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support user's handling of the administrator pedophilia screw up by Perverted Justice shows this user to be quite levelheaded and an excellent choice for bureaucrat.  ALKIVAR™  23:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strongest possible support! I can think of few more deserving than Alex. This man is the very embodiment of what is good about this site. Alkivar just hit it on the head as well. - Lucky 6.9 23:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
36. Go Linuxbeak! Andre (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
37. After reading the reply to the PJ press release, all I can say is that we need more people like Linuxbeak on Wiki English. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
38. Derex 00:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support, proof there's someone sane on Wiki English. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 01:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
40. Strong Support, because he's a great guy, and another Bureacrat would certainly help. P.S. I don't user IRC, haven't used IRC and don't plan on using IRC, so :P--Sean|Black 03:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support as per the nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. From neutral last time around: enough of the rough edges off this one now, I think, and he is willing to put out the effort to do the right thing. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - sure, why not. Guettarda 04:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. What could possibly go wrong? A worthy bureaucrat. - Vague | Rant 05:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Cette utilisateur est hyper-cool! (ahem) – ugen64 05:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. Quite impressed at the way he handled (coolly) that libelous piece at perverted-justice.com. He'll be a good bureaucrat, and we could use a couple more. Antandrus (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. --kizzle 06:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support strength of those supporting and the expectation that Linuxbeak will be around for some time to come, so I'll step back from my arbitrary need for one year of editing.--MONGO 06:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Per MONGO (except for the arbitrary year bit.) Linusbeak would make a dedicated bureaucrat. Banes 06:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. utcursch | talk 08:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
51. I was rather impressed by that letter to counter a certain obnoxious press release. Plus good experiences with Alex in the past, hence troppus noelip emertxe. Radiant_>|< 12:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
52. Happy to Support. He's helpful, seems upright, and responds well to criticism. (Also seems not to hold grudges.) AnnH ^(talk) 12:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
53. Srtong support - I am eternally grateful for the way that Alex diplomatically negotiated the retraction of an accusation that I am a pedophile supporter on Perverted Justice. Largely thanks to Alex and Luck6.9, an email was added to the POSC press release that largely refuted their claims about myself, Schissel and Lucky6.9 (for the record, I have a fairly thick skin on most things, but not on being accused of being associated with pedophilia). I have also noticed the way he goes about doing things on Wiki English. If he is not made a bureaucrat now, then I will wait till he has more experience and when he renominates himself I will fully vote support! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - Go Linuxbeak, go! --Celestianpower ^hablamé 15:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
55. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
56. On Wikipedia, the reward for a job well done is another three jobs. Support. Alphax ^τεχ 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Great users make great admins. Great admins make great 'crats. And we need more 'crats. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
58. An excellent candidate. The current bureaucrats are not active enough, and I look for assurance that new candidates are committed to the project in the long term and will remain active in maintaining RFA; Linuxbeak is clearly very enthusiastic in this regard. His enthusiasm is occasionally excessive, and I believe, had his reactions not been so entertaining to Jarlaxle and Marmot, much of those situations could have been averted; however, this is a minor complaint, and one which I don't think will be particularly relevant to bureaucrat decisions. — Dan | talk 20:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
59. Now that I've cast a support vote for Linuxbeak, he is officially "a dangerous sexual deviant" who was only promoted because of "the combined efforts of undergound pedophile cabalists." Maybe you'll even get mentioned on the news. :) 24ip | lolol 20:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief... Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 20:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support, Pavel Vozenilek 20:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support from my experience with this user, I think he would make a good bureaucrat. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Of course. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support (again). I do wish he would knock off the Alex Schenk/Linuxbeak thing though- pick one nym and stick with it! --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. --Ancheta Wis 01:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
65. Strong support :-) - I especially appreciate how you have been forthright in your responses. --HappyCamper 02:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
66. Strong support. I was one of the admins mentioned in the recent press release which Linuxbeak well answered. He has paid close attention to other issues affecting the site, and I'm glad he's running. Schissel-nonLop! 03:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support - I've only been on WP for a relatively short while, and active for even less, but LB has been one of the names which consistantly appears, and never in a negative way. I think he would be great at the job. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 03:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. I'm increasingly annoyed by the administration-via-IRC trend, but LB (or should that be AS? please pick one!) still seems like good bureaucrat material based on his direct site involvement. While I don't think we really need more bureaucrats, my impression is that there's plenty of work to be done and it would be beneficial to have a highly active bureaucrat to do it. Six months of adminship is still a bit on the short side, but for me the key here is active interest along with a consistent edit history to back it up. --Alan Au 08:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
69. Strong Support - This gent is amazing in his dedication to the projects of the Wiki Foundation. If my name were Jimbo, I would be *hiring* Alex.→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support - as Mindspillage said, the rough edges are wearing off. Ideally I'd like to see more time - can he keep putting in this level of effort? Burnout is a concern. But as Alan Au said, he has been both active and consistent. (All this and Wikimania too? Whew, good luck!) FreplySpang (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
71. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
72. I was swayed from netural to support because of all of the great things he has done recently. (Brandt treaty and the pedophile nonsense). Broken S 00:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
73. Absolutely trust his judgment (how'd I get here so late?). Dmcdevit·t 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support - Despite being what I think was a little too WP:BOLD on the Brandt issue, he was operating in good faith and I hardly think that one mistake (in my eyes) outweighs the vast positive karma that Alex has accrued. Bureaucracy grows! FCYTravis 03:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, FCYTravis... I was actually very moved by that vote, so much that I started to water up. The entire situation with Brandt was a huge mistake for me, and I appreciate it that you can still trust my judgement. This project means so much to me and I don't want one thing to gaff up my chances at being a bureaucrat. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 04:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support - I don't know how on earth an apology managed to turn into such a controversy, but I know that Linuxbeak has only tried to do what is best for the project. Raven4x4x 05:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. We do need more bureaucrats, and Linuxbeak is the right one for the job. Owen× ☎ 05:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. Just. Well. Support. :) Definitely need more bureaucrats and Linuxbeak is a good candidate for it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
78. support -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 06:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
79. Wholeheartedly support. About time we confirmed another bureaucrat. I was getting worried that it'd never happen again. Ambi 06:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. - Mailer Diablo 07:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support - if it's no big deal to be an admin, it's the same for whoever promotes admins. And he's one of the best also. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support - excellent editor with good discernment on when to take action. Linuxbeak is sensitive and diplomatic. These are all qualities of a good bureaucrat, which as other people have mentioned, we do need more of. -- Natalinasmpf 16:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support - I've always had positive interactions with Linuxbeak. Hopefully he can peck away at all the backlogs until they are NO MORE! Mo0[talk] 17:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support - Good user, deserves it, and we need more bureaucrats. -- Pakaran 18:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
85. For your scars in the battle against know trolls and vandals I hereby award you the support. Of course we all know how responsible and devoted you are and mentioning it here wouldn't do justice hence I wont mention. Oh wait I already did. Well life isnt just. :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Will do a good job, and we need more bureaucrats --rogerd 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support I'm a bit slow on the uptake here ;) but he's got my vote -- sannse (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Not to jump on the bandwagon, but we do need more bureaucrats – ABCD^e✉ 21:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    To everyone, not just ABCD: I really do appreciate every support vote that I have receieved. It shows me that people trust my judgement. However, I just want to make sure people are voting because they think that I can do the job correctly, not just to be on the bandwagon. Also, I kindly remind everyone that an RfB requires a higher percentage in order to pass, so... people who say "he's going to get it anyway", please don't assume so. I of course hope that's the case. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 23:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional note: I know some people have expressed a minor annoyance with my signature. Once this RfB closes, I will change my signature to be just "Linuxbeak" again. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 23:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support freestylefrappe 03:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support I've observed Linuxbeak since close to when he was first editing. I don't think anyone has the best interests of the project at heart more than he does. I may have disagreed with some aspects of the recent issues surrounding the Brandt affair, but more than anything else this re-impressed on me his commitment, and perfection has never been on my or any reasonable person's list of bureaucrat requirements. I'm not saying that Linuxbeak has made any mistakes, but I know if he does there is no one more ready to make things right. I have no reservations at all. Demi ^T/_C 04:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support Jeez I almost missed this. Totally Support. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support, tireless worker for the good of Wikipdeia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support. Yes. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
94. You've earned it. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 05:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support FireFox 12:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support  Grue  12:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support. He seems to be generally reasonable, and even willing to apologize for his own past behavior when warranted. I don't agree with everything he's said and done, but I trust him in general. *Dan T.* 15:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. Whether one agrees with his handling of the Brandt business, I think what he did took courage and intelligence. Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support, I used to know this one, and this one will be good. Quentin Pierce 16:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. I have no idea who Linuxbeak is, but if 99 people support him he can't be bad, and more importantly this is vote #100. This makes me special! JRM · Talk 20:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
     For the irony-impaired: the above is playful exaggeration. Of course Alex could be bad if 99 people supported him. JRM · Talk 20:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
     But seriously. Attitude goes a long way, and nobody could argue with Alex' attitude. If bureaucrats are to be held to higher standards than administrators, consider mine fulfilled. JRM · Talk 20:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support - I was wavering whether to change my vote - partially I didn't since he's winning so easily anyway. But this gem of a character went so far as to apologise to Daniel Brandt, which is a hard thing to do, and tried to reach a compromise. It had some fallout, but he did his best. And I guess I am here to say that he was write. Today I just got stabbed in the back by Brandt. Not only did he not say thanks or show any appreciation at all for all the hell I've been through to try to support his rights and try to get people to make peace with him, but the mongrel went and said that I was hurting things for him and you know what stuff him. I am not going to attack him or anything, but stuff every single thing I ever did for him. You were right to ban him. And you know what, stuff his stupid biography being totally inaccurate and slanderous. Stuff everything. Someone who can't even appreciate people who bend over backwards for them can rot in hell for all I care. I am not going to edit his page any more or stick up for him at all. Stuff him. What I said of course is still valid generally, but about him, no. He's a person with no honour. So forget it. You deserve beauocratic status. And I suppose in a few minutes my name will appear on the Hivemind, and he'll put up there all of my personal information that I gave to him and nobody else, which will totally ruin my time here. But you know what? Stuff him. Totally stuff him. And I'd like to apologise for criticising you and everyone else who lashed out at him. He deserved it, and I can understand your frustration. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support —Locke Cole 23:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support, very good admin, and it never hurts to have more bureaucrats. Has made mistakes, without question, but then, who here hasn't? And he's owned up to them and tried to correct them, which is all anybody can ask. Lord Bob 23:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. Hard worker who deserves recognition for going above and beyond in trying to square things with Brandt. Deserving of a bit of a pile on. Dragons flight 03:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support NaconKantari 03:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. Robert 03:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support. Good rep, friendly, can hardly imagine anyone more qualified. --Improv 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. Per above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. Great pick. Jbamb 01:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
112. I normally avoid voting on nominations where the nominee is someone I don't know very well, but this is one of the few exceptions I'll make. Linuxbeak's handling of the Daniel Brandt controversy was simply brilliant. If that doesn't show the kind of stuff we need more often in these parts, I don't know what does. Strong support. Johnleemk | Talk 08:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC) PS I'm of course referring to his recent burying of the hatchet with Brandt.[reply]
113. Support. per above. --Kefalonia 13:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. Korg (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support. One of the more level-headed admins. Chick Bowen 15:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support with utmost pleasure. --Bhadani 17:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:47, Dec. 20, 2005
118. Support of course. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support, but of course. Having heard some stories of his work since the last RfB, I can see why there's a hundred others. Shimgray | talk | 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support; What's the worst thing that could happen? --Jay (Reply) 00:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. Too much IRC-ateering. Also I'm not convinced 6 months as an admin is sufficient (and only 9 months as an editor in total); there are plenty of more experienced people around. But it's mainly the IRC thing; things on an encyclopaedia 'for the people, by the people' being done backchannel always makes me cross. Proto t c 15:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Just to let you know, it wasn't my fault that so many people rushed to support me (not that I'm complaining), and IRC is not Wiki English. I'm not making that claim at all. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Yeah, God forbid editors talk to each other and, like, agree or something. Heavens, they might get to know each other and work out who seems sane and stable and who doesn't! They should be in perpetual conflict on article talk pages, in the proper Wikipedia manner - David Gerard 16:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Linuxbeak gave a more than adequate response to my concerns, but as a general point, anything that affects Wikipedia administration should be discussed where everyone can see it. That goes 100x over for bureaucrats. -- Cecropia 17:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Oh, absolutely. I mean the multiple cries of ZOMG IRC CABAL as if being on IRC is an automatic strike - David Gerard 17:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   By no means did I imply that it was an automatic stike, and moreover it wasn't a matter of merely being on IRC. Rx StrangeLove 18:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   I'm willing to let one vote based on an editor using IRC go but this is getting ridiculous proto, you can't hold it against editors just because they use IRC and in several of your oppose votes this seems to be becoming a pattern. In the words of Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy, "Have you no decency sir?" Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   He's going to get through anyway. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. That doesn't mean I should change my views just because you want to compare me with Joseph McCarthy, which is kinda harsh. I only count 2 oppose votes that I've made because of over-emphasis on IRC. To the above, I don't care if people use IRC, more power to them. But Wikipedia should be transparent, and I see quite a lot of comments about decisions being made on IRC, which I don't like. And as for being 'willing to let one vote go' ... I'm refraining from commenting on that inanity, because I'd then be going wildly off-topic. Proto t c 10:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Actually I think it's a very apt analogy, both you and McCarthy have a way with being paranoid with concepts that you obviously don't understand, in his the fact that people won't always agree with his politics and in your case how IRC can be a good tool to help editors communicate with each other, also just because he's going to get it anyway shouldn't be a reasoning behind a vote, if you seriously think that's a good reason for your vote then for the common good you should really re-evaluate your reasoning. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Oppose - I don't know much else, but the comments to User:Daniel Brandt both on Wikipedia, Slashdot and other places bring Wikipedia in to disrepute and have caused enormous problems. I know it won't mean much now, but there's no way I would support Linuxbreak as an admin after that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Hi Zordrac! Could you provide a reference to something he said that placed Wikipedia in disrepute? I've only seen him trying to work peacefully through issues with Brandt, a vandal who has been banned for making legal threats and is considered a crank, but I may have missed the relevant posts. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Considered by who to be a crank? I have known about him for many years, and he is very much not considered to be a crank. He is a highly respected activist. Whilst I don't agree with him over everything (I certainly think that he is over the top with his Google fears, which I think are nowhere near as important as he suggests), he is a thoroughly nice person who is out to help each and every person in this world. Anyone who goes out of their way to attack a person like him should not be admin here. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Hi Zordrac. I'm finished with my first final today, so I've got time to respond to this. As Chairboy has already mentioned, Mr. Brandt is considered a crank. If you are basing off of things that were said by Mr. Brandt alone, then I respectfully ask you to further investigate the matter by first Googling "Daniel Brandt". You will notice that his name pops up right away as a bit of a nutcase. I was civil in dealing with Brandt when he was on Wikipedia, and in fact I tried to get him to contact me so that we could work out a compromise on the article on him. Additionally, the things that are said on slashdot can not possibly bring any disrepute. If you look at the very few things that I have said on Slashdot, they are of high quality (even Slashdot users thought so). In addition! I have worked to protect our administrators from false allegations of pedophilia. So... if that's not protecting Wikipedia's rep, I don't know what is. Oh, yes. The name is "Linuxbeak", not "Linuxbreak". Zordrac, I think you've had a misunderstanding of me, and as such I'm respectfully asking you to reconsider your vote. Thanks! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   I read about the paedophilia claims. I am a great campaigner for law reform with regards to rape, and I think that the word "paedophile" to describe a rapist is a terrible injustice. Rape is a serious crime, and using all manner of other words to describe it just waters it down. It doesn't matter how or why you were raped or what age or anything like that - its a theft of innocence, a theft of self. And of course, being a "paedophile" in the literal sense is not a rapist - it is a sexual desire. The reality is that around 50% of people who live in a country where statutory rape laws exist will have at some stage in their life committed statutory rape (either as "victim" of "perpetrator") and hence legally we can say that 50% of people are paedophiles. This just shows the ridiculousness of the whole thing. I don't see the need to defend people by saying that they are not paedophiles if we are just talking about the sexual desires. If we are talking about them being rapists, then that is entirely different. But why distinguish between different types of rape? That's really terribly wrong. Anyway, no, I will not reconsider my vote for someone who is rude to a campaigner for rights. You can call him a kook or a crackpot if you like, and maybe you have some right to do so. But being rude to him is not good. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   You'll have to show me who respects Brandt, Zordrac. I was under the impression that he was just trying to get attention for his claims and nobody was really listening. Also, you can still support even if you trust him as an admin since this is an rfb(LB as a bureaucrat), not an rfa. That other one is down the street, next to the falafel cart. karmafist 05:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Zordrac, your claims would be taken more seriously if you provided some links to discussions where Linuxbeak was rude. If he was rude then that would be bad, but without evidence I cannot judge for myself. Raven4x4x 07:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   From http: // www . wikipedia - watch . org/: 2005-11-04: "He can cry about this until the cows come home."2005-11-07: aborted the vote for deletion, normally a 7-day process, after only one day 2005-11-08: deletes the open letter to Jimmy Wales on Brandt's user page, knowing it won't be restored because he's blocked 2005-11-08: "...you truely [sic] are just a whiny has-been that never was in the first place...". If any of those things are untrue, Linuxbeak should say so, because he has provided links to prove them to be true. And on Slashdot here: [1]. There is no way that I would support someone who bashes a highly respected activist like that. So unless Linuxbeak is going to publicly apologise for his actions, there is no way that he is getting my vote. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Zordrac, those examples are not from Wiki English. I, for one, do not judge editors for anything they do offsite. Wikipedia's marvelous policies don't apply outside of WP. Xoloz 21:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Yes, also it's a bit hypocritical to hold one editor to what they do outside Wikipedia both because what they do off Wikipedia many times in now way affects what they do on Wikipedia and in all truth you can't say that you check off Wikipedia work on every contributor and indeed I doubt you can honestly say that you would like every vote knowing everything that you did off Wikipedia when looking at what you've done and who you are. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Comment. This objectionable conduct was NOT just "off Wiki requests For Bureaucratship/Linuxbeak 2" See [[2]]--FRS 20:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Oppose- It's obvious the candidate has a lot of friends, is dedicated to the project and made lots of positive contributions. In my few interactionw with him, however, I was very unfavorably impressed by his conduct in the Daniel Brandt matter. This [Personal Attack], for which I've seen no sign of remorse, is hard to excuse, and shows a serious lack of maturity. --FRS 20:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC) see comment belowFRS 23:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Was that a stupid thing? Yes. Could I have handled it better? Absolutely. But, was I unjustified at being angry? Absolutely not. Rationale time.
   When I got involved with the Daniel Brandt thing, I initially thought of him to be nothing more than a pest. However, it turned out to be worse than that. Brandt had put several quotes (not just from me) on his "Hivemind" that were horribly out of context and in some cases incorrect. How do you expect anyone to react when they post your name, age, town, place of birth, date of birth, occupation, details about children, e-mail address (until he removed them), etc. The editors of his Wikipedia article never included any personal information that one would be able to get without mining for it.
   When I tried to communicate with Brandt via email, he completely ignored me. I was angry. So, did I act in the best of ways? No. I should have just walked away from the situation or have asked Wikimedia's lawyer for advice right away. I didn't. So, in that regards, I'm sorry. I have admitted when I was wrong in the past, and those who have known me longer than you have would testify to that. But I'm not apologizing to Brandt for what was not a personal attack, nor am I apologizing to him for totally and vocally disagreeing with his self-righteous crusade against Wiki English. It's not like we are out to defame Brandt, and it's not like we take things out of context. Brandt was banned for a reason. So, FRS, if you want to oppose me on the basis that I made a personal attack towards Brandt, fine. I just disagree that it was a personal attack. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   I have continued to think about this. FRS, I think you are actually right, now. I wasn't in the right to call Mr. Brandt anything like that. I was upset that he was mining information about anyone who disagreed with him and I just lost it. As such, I'm sorry for lashing out at you. I totally disagree with Brandt, but I will do my best to remain the bigger man. I apologize. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   ...I can't believe I'm going to do this.
   I am currently writing a letter to Mr. Brandt right now apologizing for my words. I am making it clear that although I do not personally agree with many of his thoughts, we can perhaps find common ground and pull together in order to make everyone walk away happy. Let's face it: editors are annoyed at Brandt because Brandt is annoyed at the editors, and Brandt is annoyed at the editors because the editors are annoyed with him. We're all annoyed at each other! I think it's turned into a matter of pride more than a matter of what's right and what's wrong. What if we can start from scratch? Hey, I've done this with JarlaxleArtemis, and I've done this with MARMOT. Maybe it'll work? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Yes, you are out of your mind, Brandt is only going to take your correspondence, cut it up, and use it against you in any way possible.  ALKIVAR™  22:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Perhaps. But, all things considered... would it make anything any worse? User:Linuxbeak/Brandt_letter is where you'll find what I sent him. I will keep every posted. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Well, I thank you for giving this some thought and coming to the conclusion that an apology was warranted. FWIW, I'm putting the issue into my "forgive and forget" file, and withdrawing my "oppose" vote. Good luck.FRS 23:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Read this. I think this will make everyone happy. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 00:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose per the handling of the Brandt fiasco. I don't want an editor that trades with Wikipedia having increased powers, and I do not think this kind of thing shows the strongly deliberative nature required of bureaucrats. -Splash^talk 02:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Splash! El_C 03:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • Could you please provide me with a link regardingt his fiasco that I am unfamiliar with? Radiant_>|< 21:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
     • I'll get it for you, Radiant. I gaffed up but after seeing my gaff and repairing it, apologized. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 21:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
       • Duly noted. My support stands, pobody's nerfect. Radiant_>|< 00:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Called me "nothing short of controversial". Everyking 05:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   That hurts, Everyking. That really does. Quoting myself from Wiki: Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Candidate_statements/Everyking...
   Everyking, your contributions and your activity on Wikipedia have been nothing short of controversial. However, I believe that your edits in terms of contributing down-right encyclopedic material has been outstandingly superb, and I believe that you are one of the best contributors to the project. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 06:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   What I gathered from the statement was that you were criticizing me and mentioning my encyclopedia work to soften the blow. And I don't particularly like being characterized as "controversial", especially when it's stated so bluntly. I don't suppose I'd hold any of that against you in an admin nomination, but a bureaucrat nom is different, because it has more symbolic value. Everyking 06:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   So let me get this right, your opposing him based solely on symbolic value, how does that make sense? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Everyking, could you please clarify whether you're making a WP:POINT or offering a 'tit for tat'? Your text above seems to suggest that either could be the case, and I would hate to improperly decide which. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Retracted the WP:POINT part of my question, I believe now that I have misread Everyking's message and I apologize for suggesting that he was trying to disrupt Wikipedia and for the inference. Speaking with OwenX, I was offered an alternate reading of WP:POINT which places the bar much higher for mentioning it than what I previously understood to be the case. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Chairboy, I don't understand your question. How exactly is Everyking disrupting Wikipedia by opposing this RfB? Owen× ☎ 04:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   I'm withdrawing my vote. That was a bit of an overreaction on my part, and a bit thoughtless. Everyking 04:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Thanks, Everyking. I appreciate your reconsideration. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral as I don't think it needs to be up to us to go and ask Pakaran if we need more bureaucrats when you could have given us a link to that comment he made. I believe a full year of editing experience is the threshold for this position. I'm appreciative of your efforts to defend fellow admins recently though, but I'm essentially sitting this one out.--MONGO 02:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   This was said over IRC. If you wish, I may have him say it to you on the Wiki. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   I should have put the emphasis on the one year threshold I have. I see adminship as no big deal, but I don't see the position of bureaucrat the same way and I rarely vote oppose. I just view the one year as a minimal requirement for this position.--MONGO 04:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   I'll stand by what I said. One bureaucrat, working one morning a weekend, could probably keep up with the load pretty quickly. But more bureaucrats means there's a greater chance one will check RfA, and that RfA's will get closed more quickly (which tends to upset people who clearly passed, and it takes a day to close). So we do need more bureacurats. -- Pakaran 18:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral Linuxbeak is a great admin, but I'm more for the year theshold as well, not voting Oppose as I've got no specific reasons to, just doesn't quite reach my Support criteria. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU   04:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Neutral I’m concerned with the increasing influence IRC is having on this page and the nominations. 10 out of the first 15 votes on this nomination came from folks on IRC at the time it was published. IRC isn’t Wikipedia and user interaction and actions on IRC shouldn’t effect voting on the Wiki to such a great degree, the sentence below about making friends on IRC is only too true. The answer on RFA consensus wasn’t very helpful considering that at this point in time that’s the major responsibility. I think that a little more detail would have been good, especially since his answer on consensus doesn't match current practice (not that I disagree). I know this vote won’t be popular which is why I went into some detail. It certainly looks like it won’t effect the outcome so it'll work out. Rx StrangeLove 05:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Rx StrangeLove makes a good point about the growing influence #wikipedia is having on Rf*. I too am concerned that IRC conversations are turning some of these nominations into (non-subtle) popularity contests and that they may eventually cease to be true measurements of community consensus. That said, while I participate on the chat channel, my support here is based largely on Linuxbeak's involvement in the P-J incident where I feel he took the type of initiative to strengthen community that Wikipedia needs more of, and I hope that this is not overlooked in the final equation. I doubt I'm alone in this. Doc, I hope your thoughts regarding the growing influence of the IRC channel are not overlooked, and I commend your fortitude to make this vote. Best regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Well, as the first voter on this RfB, I will say that I was guided here by IRC, but it was because I happened to be looking at #wikipedia-en-vandalism when computer2 tagged Linuxbeak for a potential copyvio for creating a large new page. I don't even know that many people noticed it, I offhandedly mentioned on said channel that I had spotted Linuxbeak's RfB nomination scroll by as I wandered in to vote, and that did set off a flurry of people running here to cast votes and yelling at me for getting in before them ;-). So while IRC did allow me to get in an early vote for once, there was no discussion per se that caused me to vote, and I haven't really interacted with Linuxbeak on IRC that much, my support for him was based on my knowledge of his valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, and I think that was the feeling of the other members of the vandalism community that turned up after I did too. That doesn't mean that IRC doesn't have an influence, but my personal policies on IRC are to keep controversial discussions and actions on-wiki, to be available to all to review and observe. I use IRC mainly to communicate and coordinate with other vandalism fighters and to ask for technical support when I have a markup question, but that's just me. Anyway. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Ah, make that 11/15. ;) I was unsure about your username. I'm really not pointing fingers at anyone in particular or questioning anyones motives. It's the cumulative effect I'm concerned about. I think that there have been some RFA's that have been profoundly effected and whose results have swung on the nomineees activity on IRC...and that effect is highlighted here. Rx StrangeLove 06:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   I was afraid this might happen. When my RfB was posted, a lot of people said "Linuxbeak is up for RfB? LINK!". Now, for me, that's encouraging, because I'm apparently doing something right to have such a rush of votes. However, with that said, I was afraid that I would get an oppose vote based just on that. Although I respect all votes (or at lease all votes that aren't trolling), for my sake, I ask that you please reconsider. I want the job; I'm willing to do the job, and I'm the guy to do it. I'm asking for your vote of trust, not your vote against the system. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 13:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   It should be encouraging and you are doing lot's of things right. Unfortunately I probably didn't explain very clearly. The votes came so fast I doubt if many even read the nomination, many of the votes on this page can sometimes be largely the result of actions and relationships on IRC. That isn't your fault and I regret the vote now. I wish it hadn't been picked up by other voters and made a bigger deal then I intended. I think it's a point worth making but probably not here. I got a sarcastic "ZOMG" comment from an editor who I generally agree with, so I guess I got what was coming to me ;) Rx StrangeLove 05:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. neutral (support) for now, added question #7. Derex 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Question has now been answered. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 23:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Good luck, Linuxbeak. But just one comment. As a former magazine editor of several years, I was taught to put the commas and periods in the following phrase from your statement above, inside the quotation marks (you're written "the Wikipedia way".) -- instead of "the Wikipedia way." Ditto for "officer", not "officer," ...

Is the "Wikipedia way" different than what I was taught? If so, please excuse. Small spuds perhaps, but incorrect punctuation annoys me. Barry Wells 03:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, this is a trans-Atlantic thing (I don't know where from Linuxbeak hails as I type, btw.) Period inside quotation marks is North American only. Xoloz 15:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Rhode Island, so yes. You are correct. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 15:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Sorry, Linuxbeak, you seem to be a good guy, but reading the above: 15 support votes in the first 38 minutes?!? This seems like stuffing the ballot box and creating a steamroller effect before regular visitors here have even had a chance to consider your nomination. Bad, bad precedent. And I throoughly agree (read my long-ago comments on the subject if you're really willing to dig) that IRC is NOT wikipedia, and obfuscates what should be a transparent process. Bad for an adminship, worse for a bureaucrat, who is expected to be pretty open, unless things have changed during my WIkinap. -- Cecropia 06:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  Another editor asked me (politely) in my talk to consider that Linuxbeak simply mentioned his RfB on IRC and didn't campaign. I can certainly accept that as true and do not attach dark motives to LB's nomination. However, I stand by my above comments about IRC and especially the "steamroller" effect. This is not the first time (or the second or third) that I have seen things happen on Wikipedia that originated on IRC and noone was aware. I usually don't vote on RfA and would not have opposed LB absent the IRC. But, in totality, I still feel this is bad precedent and I would prefer to see LB come back later and stand for bureaucrat without any instant notification to potential voters, innocent or not. -- Cecropia 07:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  I have to point out that it is unlikely that there would have been such a rush of support if Linuxbeak was a bad user. If anything, I am encouraged by this, as it means that there are lots of people about that consider him worthy. These oppose votes do not in any way reflect the candidate, and I don't think that's the way we should be dong things. Are we to reject any RFA or RFB that gets mentioned on IRC? Of course not; I do understand the concerns but punshing an innocent nominee surely is not the way to do change things. Raven4x4x 13:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  Cecropia, seeing that I'm very active on IRC, the probability of "no instant notification" is nil. Plus, IRC exists, so as soon as the word is out, then people will undoubtedly flock. Again, as I've stated above: Although I respect all votes (or at lease all votes that aren't trolling), for my sake, I ask that you please reconsider. I want the job; I'm willing to do the job, and I'm the guy to do it. I'm asking for your vote of trust, not your vote against the system. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 14:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • laughs* As lame as this is going to sound, it's not my fault! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 14:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  OK, a fair enough response, and I suppose there isn't any way to prevent someone from mentioning someone else's candidacy. I'm still unhappy with the uses of IRC, but as you reasonably say, it's not your fault. Note to User:Raven4x4x: No disrespect to Alex, but a rush of support implies someone is not a bad user, but it doesn't address their fitness for a particular position. I know that in a democracy, people can be elevated to high office, even leader of a country, on popularity or personality, but it doesn't mean the best person was elected. Anyway, Opposition withdrawn. -- Cecropia 14:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• IRC is very efficient for communication between editors, and I can see it being seen as too efficient. But by crikey it's useful. My vote for Linuxbeak is because I think he's definitely at the stage where his jobs well done on Wikipedia mean we should be landing him with more jobs - David Gerard 00:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose- I would not want to vote for someone as RFB unless he is atleast a year old on Wikipedia (Nothing personal, though, but I believe that just as voters hv their standards for RFA, I too wd have standards for RFB, especially since it is a bigger deal). --Gurubrahma 07:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Guru, per that logic, you would not have recieved my support vote on your RFA as you did not pass my "standards". There are sometimes cases where one should go beyond their standards and make a gut decision based on the current evidence provided. I urge you to please reconsider your vote against Linuxbeak, If you feel you still cannot support I ask that you instead switch to neutral.  ALKIVAR™  09:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still not fully convinced; changing it to no vote. --Gurubrahma 09:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Linuxbeak: On RFA, what % is consensus? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 04:25

• Roughly 80%. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 04:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't we get a bot to run RFA, then? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 04:31
    • To that, I say "absolutely not." Sockpuppetry is something that the bureaucrat must always be aware of, and that's for both support votes and oppose votes. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 04:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, but other people can determine that. If it's 80%, we can just "close" an RFA and tell the bureaucratbot that the user either hit 80% or didn't. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 04:35
        • Ehhhh... I don't really think having a bot automate the adminship process would be a good idea at all. As much as I love technology, some things I would just feel better having a human in control of. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 04:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is the problem with that, though? 80% = adminship. Similar bots have been made for FPC. It would eliminate the need for more bureaucrats. Are there any downsides? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 04:52
            • Ah, but RfA isn't the only thing bureaucrats do! They also change usernames, and the devs have other bureaucratic rights programmed that are likely to be used in the future. Plus, you need bureaucrats to do the actual promotion; it's just a fact of the MediaWiki software (I would know; I've looked at it). Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 04:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm specifically talking about RFA, though. One bureaucratbot can be run on an approved name and handle all RFAs. It's as simple as the equation 80% = adminship. This would remove much of the current bureaucrats' work, and much of the need for more bureaucrats. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 05:06
                • The ultimate bot, huh? Sounds like an episode of The Twilight Zone to me... CuteLittleDoggie^{Let's play!} 06:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • As much as I wish I could continue this tonight, I must go to bed. I will continue this tomorrow, Brian :-) Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 04:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Doesn't 80% (even roughly) run counter to the practice on RFA's these days? Rx StrangeLove 04:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly seems that way, doesn't it? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 04:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it does. Would you follow current practice or the 80% consensus level? Rx StrangeLove 04:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless there was evidence of heavy sockpuppet action (..ew o_O), then I would be an 80% person. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 05:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a new question below. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In case anybody is curious, I have no plans to go through the less than 20 successful nominations on Wiki: Recently created bureaucrats and create an "RFB nomination records" page similar to my User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I will. User:Ashibaka/RFB nomination records Ashibaka tock 05:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

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. To become an administrator is not just a matter of what the overt consensus reflects. I know that this has happened in the past: an editor receives a fair amount of votes, both for and against his or her promotion, and then it is discovered that both sides have been using meatpuppets or socks. At this point, the bureaucrat must assess the situation. How much influence did the unfair votes have on legit voters? Is there evidence of a past dispute that might have triggered this? Is there evidence of a "herd mindset"? All of these factors must come into play. Unless there is no evidence whatsoever of vote tampering or manipulation, an RFA is not as clear-cut as an 80% consensus. Every case is different; it is up to the bureaucrat to investigate and determine the correct action, and then consult with the other bureaucrats.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Undoubtedly, some users might not be the most popular. However, popularity has absolutely no business entering the arguement over consensus. If an editor has reached at least an 80% level of consensus (more or less), then that editor is to be promoted. As I have stated before, I don't have any issues with getting my hands dirty and upholding what Wikipedia has set forth as established rules and policies.
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. First, I'm going to be ever-so-slightly unoriginal and steal from Andre's nomination. My contributions are hereby laid out in front of you, and I invite you to audit them. I also invite you to look at my user page, which contains links to relevent logs. I believe I do not only follow Wikipedia policies, I also believe that I effectively enforce it fairly. As far as engaging others in the community, I've always been one to drag people I know into IRC. It is, quite frankly, one of the most effective places to learn about Wikipedia, and you get to make a lot of friends.
4. Can you describe the circumstances which prompted JarlaxleArtemis to spam-create numerous anti-Linuxbeak usernames (as seen in list of all accounts ever registered on Wiki), as well as the circumstances surrounding your attempt to reconcile with him and bring him back into the Wikipedia fold? Can you also describe the circumstances surrounding your attempt to bring MARMOT back into the Wikipedia fold?
A. Sure. JarlaxleArtemis was involved in a rather lengthy ArbCom case in which I was a party. I won't get into details, because they're really not important. Jarlaxle more or less took his anger out on me by creating a bunch of usernames that showed up on the front page of Special:Listuser. He also impersonated me throught Wiki territory by using my user name on Commons, Wikinews, and other language Wikipedias. I have been able to reclaim at least one of those accounts (Commons). He also went and impersonated me on non-Wiki projects such as Memory Alpha. I have a talk archive that is dotted with people from other Wiki's telling me that I was being impersonated.

For the longest time, I was angry. I didn't want anything to do with JarlaxleArtemis, but as time went on (even as he continued with his anti-Linuxbeak campaign by creating an article about me on Encyclopedia Dramatica; that's a whole other topic for another day), I felt that I should try to see if he would reform his ways. Well, I contacted him on AIM (I won't divulge details), and eventually I let him back in.

As far as MARMOT's concerned, he was the big one for me. MARMOT was the writer of the vandalbot Love Virus. Literally hours after I unbanned Jarlaxle, MARMOT came to me on IRC, promising to be good, and I feel that he meant it. He did mention that he had a condition which caused him to act irrationally, so I let him back in with the assurance that he would reform. I am honest-to-God proud of both of these two editors and of the progress that they've made. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 21:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Linuxbeak, if you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on IRC or any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?
A.   Of course. Unless there was some unknown reason to expose our rational, then it would be an internal bureaucrat matter. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. What is your view on promoting users early, like a day or several hours before the deadline, if their RFAs have an overwhelming number of Support votes?
A. I like this question. Even people with three hundred votes to one oppose must go through the process. The vote ends when it says it ends at the top of the page, and that's that. The only time an RFA is to end before the posted time is if it's a pile-on of opposition. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what if a user has 1/10/0? Should their nomination be closed early? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 20:24
Eeeh... most likely, yes, due to the "snowball's chance" clause. However, you must be wary of sockpuppetry, etc. Generally speaking, if there are a bunch of opposes compared to a small amount of supports, there is usually a reason. It's up to the bureaucrat to find out what that reason is and then act accordingly. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7 You say the reason you are running is that we need more bureacrats and you are willing to do the job. (a) Is the "need" something that most present bureacrats agree on? (b) Why are you the best person, other than that you're willing? I suspect plenty of people are willing (maybe not?).
Officially, I am uncertain of what most bureaucrats say of the matter. I *do* know that I have good relations with all of the bureaucrats and each that I have talked to in length (Raul654, Pakaran, Rdsmith4, etc.) has been supportive of me in the past. If you wish, I may try to answer that question for you relatively soon. Now, the reason why I am the best person is because I have already had my hand involved with community matters. As I have stated before, I have the cares of the community in mind, which I think is best exemplified in three places: the unbanning and mentorship of User:JarlaxleArtemis, the unbanning and mentorship of User:MARMOT, and the defense of our administrators from libel as shown here. I have mediated conflicts, mentored previously-abusive users, protected our valuable community, and have done anything that has been asked of me to further Wikipedia as a whole. Plus, as David Gerard puts it, I'm insane, therefore I fit the bill. ;-) Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have talked to Rdsmith4. He says that he is personally indifferent regarding the need for more bureaucrats, but he did mention that another bureaucrat could be of help. So... there you have it. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 00:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]