Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights/RFB archive/Graestan

< Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights | RFB archive
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Graestan (7 admins + 15 users/4 admins + 2 user/1 admin)

Two week deadline from first request, voting ends 23 August.

Support
  1. With two bureaucrats (Greyman and myself) at a severely reduced level of activity for the foreseeable future, and with at least one bureaucrat practically a no-show, I feel that Wookieepedia could benefit from promoting another bureaucrat. This would increase the amount of active bureaucrats to three. I'm certain jSarek and Riffsyphon1024 could handle giving out the user rights candy when needed without the help of a third bureaucrat, but as I have stated repeatedly in past RFBs and RFAs: handing out powers should not be based purely on Wookieepedia's need, but also on the worthiness of the user in question. Graestan is a prolific editor, a responsible admin, and generally a great guy. We could use another bureaucrat, and I can think of no candidate more worthy. --Imperialles 23:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Hell yes! MadclawShyriiwook! 23:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. I've been around long enough to know that Graestan can be trusted with bureaucrat status. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 23:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. --—Tommy9281 Red lightsaber (Peace is a lie) 23:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. We need more competent and active bureaucrats with Imp and Greyman busy for a while. I think Grae has earned the trust of the community; he's dedicated, and he truly cares about all aspects of the site. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. supergeeky1 \m/ The Cantina 11:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. The good of the site is more important than any one person's political views, be they real-world politics or Wookiee-politics. Graestan is as impartial as any current active administrator can be reasonably expected to be, and people who vote against him based on their own biases should be ashamed of themselves. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 12:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per Imp. The need is there, and Graestan has the chops. Gonk (Gonk!) 12:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. Even though the nomination, I feel, comes a few months early, I know he'll make the site proud. I'm glad to see that Grae's worked hard to absolve any doubts I may have originally harbored, and after several MSN conversations with Grae in regards to a number of things, I believe that he is ready. With continual support from his fellow sysops, Graestan will only continue to do what is right for the site. Greyman(Talk) 13:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. Love your last answer. Chack Jadson (Talk) 13:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  11. Sorry I caught this late or my vote would have been right up there at the top. I like to think I know Grae better than most people on this site, both as an editor and an actual person, and as such I feel I can personally vouch for the genuine person that he is. It has been my absolute privilege to get to know him during my time here as we have worked together, through both of our developments, to improve the quality of Wookieepedia. I can say with absolute authority that his motivations for doing anything Wookieepedia related come with the best intentions in mind. He's not spiteful, antagonistic, or moody, and he doesn't let negativity or personal grudges influence his decision making. Grae has done so much as an active administrator under the tutelage of some of our finest that I feel his work speaks for itself in regards to his worthiness of the holding the Bureaucrat flag. With that in mind, with an emphatic "per Culator," I feel anyone who thinks they can find any reason to vote against him needs to reevaluate their own childish biases and get over themselves. Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  12. Definitely. Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 15:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  13. Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing (Oya Manda!) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  14. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  15. SFH 23:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  16. I believe that we can trust Grae with bureaucratic powers. Though I personally don't think we need anymore bureaucrats, I believe his nature to help others, resolve conflicts, and to just contribute a sheer amount of reliable knowledge to Wookieepedia makes him invaluable to the site, as well as a natural leader. It makes him an obvious choice for bureaucracy, and hell, he deserves it as well for all he has done for Wookieepedia. DC 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  17. Seems right for the job to me. -- Colinmcev 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  18. Per Imp. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  19. Quite a trusted user in my experience. Would do this site well with a bureaucrat flag. --Charitwo 07:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  20. Didn't even have to think twice on this approval. StarNinja99 Tyvokka 07:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  21. JMAS Hey, it's me! 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  22. I must admit that after thinking long-and-hard about this, I believe he can serve Wookieepedia well and be a good representative for us all. He has earned our trust, and I believe he is capable. I agree that we may not fully need another BC, but, if another is to be selected, Graestan is a solid nominee. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 12:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  23. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 05:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  24. I have taken my time on voting in this manner - partly because I always vote last-minute, but mostly because I've wanted to compare and contrast each argument from each party to my own perceptions and encounters. As has been stated in the relevant sections, there are several pros and cons. I personally have never experienced, witnessed, been a part of, or even noticed any of said cons; I'm sure this is largely due to my intermittent attention span, but, whatever :P. On the other hand, I've more often than not been aware of the pros mentioned - including the vague "passionate" one, which could easily be taken both ways - and every time it's been in a good manner. Basically, all of the experiences I've had dealing with Grae have been good. Biased as that may sound, it's all I've really known/paid attention to. I feel he'll be an excellent addition to the ranks of bureaucracy, especially in the absences of Greyman and Imp, and am interested to see just how this election plays out. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 23:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Ozzel 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. I don't think we really need more bureaucrats—it's a perfectly symbolic position that jSarek, Riffs, and the others are more than capable of handling. And, I must respectfully disagree with some of my colleagues by saying that I do not feel he is of a suitable demeanor to be a bureaucrat. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd like to point out that Riff hasn't used his bureaucrat powers in over a year and a half. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I do hope you're not inferring that I don't perform my duties as much as I should. Granted others take up certain responsibilities that elder BCs and admins previously performed but only because they are more active. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not inferring anything—I'm stating fact. And I don't see why that would be a problem. This isn't the place to discuss this, anyway, so please email me if you want to continue. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I want to make clear that my decision is based in part on my own availability on the site in the future. I hope to continue to perform my duties at least periodically. Granted I will be entering the realm of graduate school next year, so I may indeed be limited in my access. On the other hand, I might have even more free time and access. It's still unknown at this point, so if this was the only reason for voting one way or another, I could not do so. Now I have to factor in these new developments regarding his response to Star and the like. Is Grae as neutral and fair as we hope? -- Riffsyphon1024 19:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
            • I am. Nothing will deter me from my goals of making Wookieepedia a more cooperative venture, even though I might have to sacrifice an ideal or two in order to maintain fairness, neutrality, and civility. This includes losing this election. If anything, I've learned a lot from this experience, about myself, the site, and the community, and I'd especially like to thank Fourdot and Hydro for their comments below. I never thought I'd smile upon reading an opposition vote until I saw theirs. Graestan(Talk) 20:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. If I'm allowed to, I'd like to explain why my vote is here, and not elsewhere. First off, I'll say what will no doubt be (mistakenly) assessed as baloney, though it's anything but: Graestan is a great guy, a great contributor, and a superb Wookieepedian. If he were up for administration (again), I'd vote for him in a flash, and history will show you that I did. And I haven't once regretted doing so. However, in my opinion, "bureaucracy," in our terminology, requires someone who is naturally impartial, and more "detached" in a sense, and for everything that Graestan is, I must unfortunately say that's probably the one thing he's not. That's not to say that he's never impartial...in fact, he is, almost all of the time. But he does get invested, heavily, I feel, in both people and issues, which is, in a way, very good for progress. But it's not a quality I would look for in a bureaucrat. And I've been wrong, in the past, when it comes to voting on this position, but I've given this a great deal more thought. And look, this isn't to say that in a few months, I'd vote otherwise...in all likelihood I would, but I feel that this is maybe a bit before time. There's no denying there's a need out there, but I can't really think of anyone who's ideal for the role, and I just don't think that Graestan is right for this job at the moment. Thefourdotelipsis 08:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. For what it's worth, I think Grae is a fine editor, and though I've disagreed with him on some admin decisions in the past, I think he's generally a good administrator as well. However, I kind of have to agree with 4dot on the issue of detachment. The issue isn't bias in the way Grae talks about below. I believe him that he doesn't try to serve his own ends or hold grudges; in fact, having had more than a few arguments with him, I've seen myself how he can still remain fair later. But I also feel that he can get very emotionally invested in things, seeing insult in disagreement or debate. A bureaucrat is a moderator writ large; and that idea of "moderation" I feel takes a kind of impartiality that conflicts with the sort of emotional investment I've seen. - Lord Hydronium 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. "He's not spiteful, antagonistic, or moody, and he doesn't let negativity or personal grudges influence his decision making." I'm sorry, but I disagree, and I will explain why. For those of you familiar with IRC, there is an admin-only channel called #wookieepedia-cabal. Until tonight, I was the founder and sole operator of that channel. I heard from Greyman that there were a few people complaining about the fact that a former admin (me), who no longer even visits the channel (let alone IRC), has access to the ~exclusive admin channel~. Apparently one of the people complaining was Graestan, who has a beef with me. Instead of being a man and emailing me about the situation to try and hash it out with me, he chose to go to Freenode and bug them about removing me from the access list. Greyman even asked him about talking to me about it, but Grae's response was "I don't want to talk to her". If he can't even take the time to talk to someone he has a grudge with about access to an IRC channel, how is he going to be able to mediate disputes on the site? Something to think about... StarNeptuneTalk to me! 05:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • This is a rather unfortunate turn of events. The only reason I sought to have your access removed from the channel is that in your absence, you failed to grant any other admins the +f flag necessary to give out access to new admins. We've had three new admins added since that time, and none of them were able to have their access to the admin channel added because you left for whatever reason. As far as being "a man" and e-mailing you goes… I deleted you from my address book when you quit the site. There just wasn't any reason, with you refusing to respond to me and no longer an admin on the site, for me to contact you anymore. When I noticed this IRC issue, I attempted to use the Wikia e-mail function to find you, but you don't have an e-mail set up. So I talked to Greyman about the situation, leaving you out of the equation completely and attempting to get Freenode to circumvent the flags issue. I assure you and all others that I have been very dispassionate and rational about this issue, despite your claims, only trying to get the situation handled without this sort of behavior that I only expected out of you, following your comments towards Imp on your own failed bureaucrat nomination. This is why I told Greyman I didn't want to approach you myself about the situation: I figured you were too mad at me, for whatever reason (you certainly have never been forthcoming about why the 180 in your attitude occurred), to speak to me or work with me about anything. I've been nothing but practical about the matter. Furthermore, this is your only contribution to the site in three months. If there exists any sort of conflict whatsoever between you and me, it's that you quit, over who knows what, and came back for the sole purpose of bashing another user. I just can't respect that. Graestan(Talk) 12:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Am I the only one who sees the irony in Graestan taking a cheap shot at me on his RFB, because I took a cheap shot at Imp on my RFB? Seriously, what does my RFB have to do with this one, and what is there to gain by bringing it up? This RFB is about Graestan and his behavior, not mine. I'm not even going to address the rest of that post, because I've already said my piece. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 18:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • The only "cheap shot" I register on this page is your vague personal attack about me not being "a man." It saddens me that I had to make a decision right then and there as to whether I should warn you as an admin for doing so. As you can see, clemency was the result of said decision, and I hope that if you choose to contribute to the site again, it will be in a more positive way than this. There was nothing inappropriate in how I handled any of this, and I welcome Greyman or any other user involved to come forward and say that I was in fact rather businesslike about the matter. This isn't my personal grudge, Star, it's yours, and I think it's just the sort of negativity that Wookieepedia has been getting past for the last several months and will continue to rise above. Even if I do not win this RFB, I will continue in my work to make the Wookieepedia community a beneficial function of the encyclopedia. Graestan(Talk) 20:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
          • This is completely pointless, both of you. Grae, I realize that you were being impartial with this issue; when you discussed this with me on IRC, you were rather "businesslike" about it. However, about this being Star's only contribution in the last three months, she did not come here to specifically bash you. She voiced her own opinions on the matter, even if they were rather harsh, and she has every right to. This is bureaucratic status were talking about here, which represents leadership on the site. Furthermore, you probably could have found Star's email address if you simply asked other users who might have had it. Trust me on this, I can tell that you didn't want to create a whole mess by talking to Star about it. If she didn't respond, or created a mess, then that can give you grounds for what you did. It saddens me that personal attacks and "cheap shots" have been passed around on this page currently, especially coming from both you and Star, both of whom were admins. Now Star, you were right to disagree, but by no means was it right for you to attack Grae. I know that this cabal channel thing is done and over with, but I would like to assure the community that judging from this matter, that not everybody is perfect. Both made mistakes here and said things that should not have been said. Still, I will stand by and lend my full support to Grae in this matter, and assure the community that while he may not be perfect, he is still by far the best candidate for bureaucracy and tries his hardest to do what is best for the site, as well as doing his best to stay impartial in most matters. DC 22:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. I just can't support Graestan for BC. The reasons why have already been stated.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 20:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. I'm unsure at the moment. It would be nice to have the extra oversight, but as claimed by the latter four admins, do we really need another BC. I'm trying to remain unbiased, however I do happen to be one of those BCs. I will continue to monitor the vote until then. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Optional candidate Q&A
  1. Why do you think we need another bureaucrat?
    • Per Imperialles's (is it impolitic of me to choose how to execute matters of S and apostrophe?) comment above, I see an increasing need for active bureaucrats as well as active administrators. I view both Imp and Greyman as "get things done" sorts of fellows, taking initiative to make sure the processes of the site are patrolled and maintained correctly. As far as a bureaucrat goes, I often see a need for an objective mediator or someone to step into the middle of an IRC brawl with decisive action. This need grows with the absence and inactivity of a fair share of our current bureaucrats.
  2. How do you see the difference between an admin and a bureaucrat?
    • This is simple, to me: a bureaucrat makes a concerted effort to be a leader even among administrators. This involves looking at every situation objectively, not taking into account personal feelings or politics. These practices are something I've seen our bureaucrats do with regularity, while many users, regrettably including some administrators, have overly concerned themselves with cronyism and politicking in their dealings, always with unfortunate results.
  3. What will you use your new status for if your nomination succeeds?
    • I would certainly make a concerted effort to ensure that dealings between Wookieepedians at all levels are fair and civil. As an admin, I've seen my share of situations between admins where a third, neutral point of view was necessary in mediating conflict. Were I to be named a bureaucrat, I would be willing and able to step in accordingly, taking the interests of both sides into consideration while striving to find an acceptable middle ground. As well, I'd do my best to ensure that the needs of the community are met, making myself available wherever possible. And, of course, I'd be very enthusiastic about promoting new rollbackers and administrators to their positions.
  4. How many admins do you think we need?
    • More. I'm not sure how many, but the number of admins currently listed on the page can be misleading, when one takes into account the number of active admins, much less the number of admins who use the sysops tools, and even then the number of admins who use the sysops tools for more than whatever need should arise in their personal editing practices. Admins who patrol the site with regularity, maintaining the processes and getting things done when it is required of them, are highly valued, and certainly in demand at this time.
  5. How many bureaucrats do you think we need?
    • I'd normally say something like "not a lot," but with Greyman and Imp at least partially out of the picture for a while, and with the site continuing to grow in every way—including, unfortunately, conflicts—having someone around that is clearly designated as a leader would be a good thing in more than one way.
  6. What should happen to admins/bureaucrat candidates who disappear for awhile without warning, leaving many questions, projects, and that sort of thing hanging?
    • In all honesty, I consider it highly unconscionable to abandon your post for a prolonged period without either stepping down or making due announcement of your intentions. This is because an administrator serves the Wookieepedia community, and I certainly wouldn't expect newer users, or even established ones, to trust me or my usage of sysops privileges after disappearing for a prolonged episode. Indeed, I was the very user who first proposed a policy on admin inactivity, and while I had to make concessions of leniency in order for the proposal to pass, I stand by my assertion that taking off for a matter of months with no word and expecting to return to the same position on the site and in the community is rather selfish.
Final comment

As a bureaucrat, I would not by any means use my position in order to further my own objectives with the site. It has always been my intention to serve the site, the community, and most importantly of all, our readers. I stand by my statements that I would never intentionally abuse the processes of the site, and have never done so in the past. While I have had my share of conflicts with other editors in the past, as has virtually every other influential user on the site, I do not hold a grudge towards anyone whatsoever. This is not simply a tenet of my religious beliefs, but a fundamental part of the person I am. Everyone gets a second chance, and a clean slate, the next time I have dealings with them, unless it is clear that their intentions toward the site and its community are harmful, in which case I am prepared to do what is necessary. In any event, regardless of the outcome, I'd like to thank everyone who contributes to Wookieepedia for their hard, free work to inform readers about Star Wars. Graestan(Talk) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Accepted nomination on IRC. --Imperialles 23:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • You know, the current division of votes is interesting. I'm not sure what it says about the administration when their opinions are so radically different from the majority of users. Have you all really become so disconnected from the common folk? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • People are allowed their own votes, to vote how they want -- This is a democracy, no? If someone doesn't support something, they shouldn't have to be guilted into changing their vote, or feel that their opinion (especially on the RFU page) is "wrong." Also, as shown with a lot of other past RFU nominations (rollback, admin, etc.) it can sometimes be construed as a popularity contest, or people are too afraid to vote oppose in fear of the retaliation, of any sort, that they may get from other users/admins. I, for one, am happy to see that people are giving a lot of thought to their votes on the RFU page these days, as opposed to just voting anyone into a position, and learning later that they are a) going to be an inactive sysop, b) don't give a care to use their sysop tools, c) a joke as a sysop, or d) an embarrassment for the community as a sysop. If people want to vote what they feel is right, either on any RFU nomination, or anywhere else on this site, be it a CT, TC, etc. than more power to them. In something as important as this, or other functions of the site (like a TC, CT, etc.) users should never feel afraid that they are going to persecuted for voting how they want. Greyman(Talk) 05:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I must say I wholeheartedly agree with greyman Darth vexus0555 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)