View source for Illerai:Requests for adminship/Jakesterwars (Bureaucrat)

{{Archive}}
==[[User:Jakesterwars|Jakesterwars]]==
{{Userinfo|Jakesterwars|links=yes}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Hello, my name is Jakesterwars and I nominate myself for the role of bureaucrat.

A brief history of my roles thus far, outside of admin currently, has largely been involved in module and template reworks/additions across the wiki. This includes ranges from drop table structures and map usage to quality of life additions for ease of cross page usage. I have a decent amount of knowledge of the inner workings on SMW and how we use the data across pages to help new/old editors for anything they may ask. I admit I am not as active in the forum side of discussions for support/oppose types of situations, but I am active on Discord with a good portion of multi-user involved decisions. I also help prepare for big updates that are known, whether it's creating pages early or compiling information we may have on hand.

I consider myself able to take on the role of a bureaucrat and help Spine/Julia with discussions and decisions that require it.

''I, Jakesterwars, accept this nomination for bureaucrat. I understand that the only difference between bureaucratship and the administrative ability that I already have is that I am able to assign user rights. I understand that I may not, for any reason, delegate any form of adminship to any user who has not passed an appropriate RFA or RFB. Lastly, I understand that the respective agreement in regards to standard adminship still applies. Signed,'' Jakesterwars. [[User:Jakesterwars|Jakesterwars]] ([[User talk:Jakesterwars|talk]]) 19:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

===Questions for the nominee===

'''1. What work do you intend to take part in?''' <br />
Same thing as I do already as an administrator plus the role requirements that come with becoming a bureaucrat (IE granting access to new admins and bot flags).

'''2. What have been your most helpful contributions to the Old School RuneScape Wiki, and why?''' <br />
Overhaul of duplicated information through templates, module usage, calculator creations, and helped structure how we display information across multiple pages (Recipe SMW). My reasoning stands that it helps users find information easier or for editors to get information on a page quicker with simple template usage.

'''3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?''' <br />
None that comes to mind that causes significant issues if you disregard the vandalism chains that happen sporadically.

[[Category:Closed requests|Jakesterwars]]

===Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)===
# When you say you are not active on the Forums discussion part, will this change with having bureaucrat tools?
: Whether or not I obtain the bureaucrat tools, I am planning on being more involved with forum discussions. However the difference would be the standpoint I would approach discussions since I would need to be more neutral in my thought to make sure both sides of the discussion are properly taken into account. {{U|Jakesterwars|15:58, 13 August 2021}}
# Because you mention that you want to help Spine and Julia with discussions and decisions: Can you give me an example of a situation you think would require for a bureaucrat to step in and make a decision besides dealing with Rfa's?
: A decision relating to how we structure and display information, such as the OQG thread that is going on currently still. This is a discussion that is both useful and also very objective in design to a certain degree that it may end up requiring a final say from a bureaucrat to settle the dust. {{U|Jakesterwars|15:58, 13 August 2021}}
{{Signatures/Brok Enwings}} 10:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Question''' - What is the role of a bureaucrat in your opinion and how does that differ to an admin? What qualities do you think a bureaucrat should have and do you think you have all of those qualities? [[User:Cqm|'''cqm''']] <sup>[[User talk:Cqm|'''talk''']]</sup> 10:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
: Role of bureaucrat to me is a person that takes a neutral stance to large discussions to be able to make a final stance when required at the end. This differs from a regular admin because while policy changes happen often, especially the past couple years, there will be some decisions that will need a hard neutral review to be finalized with and that's where the bureaucrat comes in. Qualities I believe a bureaucrat should have is a level head, the ability to read standpoints from multiple angles to make a clear decision, and an ability to manage any strife that may occur. The side effect having access to the OSW Twitter account for things we may need to send out. {{U|Jakesterwars|15:58, 13 August 2021}}
::When do you think that neutrality is most difficult and when is it most important? [[User:Cqm|'''cqm''']] <sup>[[User talk:Cqm|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
::: Most difficult would be when personal investment comes into play. Anything that one would feel a strong opinion on would make it difficult to neutrally make a decision, even if it's the correct thing to do. When it's most important is when there is major conflict that needs a resolution for both parties. [[User:Jakesterwars|Jakesterwars]] ([[User talk:Jakesterwars|talk]]) 18:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Question''' - What are some aspects of becoming an admin that may help you handle the role of bureaucrat? Do you have any weaknesses that you're looking to improve alongside the role promotion? [[User:Kosmiklove|Kosmiklove]] ([[User talk:Kosmiklove|talk]]) 19:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
: Main weakness I would find is my low contact with the forums as a whole, which I brought up in the opening as a place to improve on whether I do or do not get the bureaucrat role. A main aspect that I've found from becoming an admin that can help would be understanding that the role itself has a face value to the community (wiki or in game), meaning that what we say can have an effect somewhere else. Another aspect would be understanding how to handle potential problems that may arise, whether they are users or a heated discussion that needs to be toned down some. [[User:Jakesterwars|Jakesterwars]] ([[User talk:Jakesterwars|talk]]) 02:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Question''' - Why do you want to be a bureaucrat? - [[User:Andmcadams|Andmcadams]] ([[User talk:Andmcadams|talk]]) 01:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
: While in normal cases I would find two active bureaucrats would be plenty to handle anything that either of them would be needed for, however that isn't the case anymore. Although nothing has come up recently that required a bureaucrat, that isn't always going to be a case. To put it simply, we should have at least two active bureaucrats on both the site and our off site discussion location (Discord). [[User:Jakesterwars|Jakesterwars]] ([[User talk:Jakesterwars|talk]]) 01:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

==Discussion==

'''Not yet''' - I first want to thank you, Jake, for taking the time to nominate yourself for this role. It shows your dedication to the community and the wiki as a whole. Over the last two years, you have a total of 12 edits within the Forum: namespace. These edits span across 9 threads and none of which you were the closing admin on. You've mentioned that this is a weakness and area that you're wanting to improve regardless of the outcome of this thread. Further involvement within the Forum: namespace is something that I will need to see before I am able to objectively support this nomination. Additionally, your nomination seemed almost like a regular admin RfA and not necessarily a bureaucrat one. There was no mention about additional permissions (granting admin or bot user group permissions) or more specifically on the need or ability for discussion closure until asked by the community. I think you're a great admin, and I anticipate a future nomination should this one not be successful. --{{User:Legaia2Pla/Signature}} 13:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
: '''comment''' - For what it's worth, [[RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Laagone (Bureaucrat)|Julia]] had a similar count of Forum space edits (and no closures) when she RfB'ed. That isn't to say Forum contributions can't be used as reasoning for if someone is fit to be a bureaucrat, but historically it does not seem to have been required. - [[User:Andmcadams|Andmcadams]] ([[User talk:Andmcadams|talk]]) 18:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Support''' - Jake is a good admin, he is very active as both an editor and as someone who discusses issues in discord. I would argue that his low number of Forum edits is misleading. Most real discussion happens in discord these days, and Jake participates in this discussion more than often enough for me to have a clear idea of where his head is at and how he comes to conclusions. I trust Jake to be able to step back and make intelligent decisions given what has already been discussed. To me, that is the defining role of being a bureaucrat. It isn't as easy as it sounds, and it is something I think very few people have the ability to do. In all honesty, Jake is the only person I would support to become a bureaucrat right now. On a separate note, I think Jake is right that it is important that we have at least two active bureaucrats. If we don't, this severely limits Spine's ability to comment on threads/RFAs that he may be expected to close. (like this rfb) - [[User:Andmcadams|Andmcadams]] ([[User talk:Andmcadams|talk]]) 03:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - At the risk of being a stickler for process, can the relevant parts of {{t|RFA}} be added here?. Notably the acknowledgement of policies and answering the standard 3 questions. [[User:Cqm|'''cqm''']] <sup>[[User talk:Cqm|'''talk''']]</sup> 10:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
: I fixed this up now. Should be good to go. [[User:Jakesterwars|Jakesterwars]] ([[User talk:Jakesterwars|talk]]) 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - I'm not a big part of the OSRSW community outside of Discord so I have no clear perspective on how Jake performs as an admin. However, I don't think it's fair for the Wiki and the community to have only one bureaucrat and to put all the burden on Spine. It should be very obvious why it's a good idea to have more than one bureaucrat. Jake seems like a very reasonable candidate from how I see him behave on Discord. Perhaps you should all be asking yourself "why not" instead of "why". {{Signatures/Haidro}} 10:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Support''' - I've interacted with Jake a fair bit and I trust him to make the right decisions and think about action before taking it. Much like what Mr. Andmcadams said, it is mainly through discussion in Discord that this is supported and I think that transfers to threads here fairly easily. Regardless of the new tools accessible to a nominee, the ultimate deciding factor, is whether the nominee can be trusted to do what is in their power to be fair and impartial. I see that in Jake and his actions, again, mainly in Discord however I look forward to more involvement in proper forums. Having more bureaucrats also enables other bureaucrats to comment on threads, specially RfAs, without the appearence of or actual bias to close. I personally see no apparent reason for an oppose. {{User:Fjara/Signature}} 16:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:I don't get why you'd like to see a bureaucrat comment on a RfA. Having 2 doesn't mean they're always available, it just means you have some redundancy. [[User:Cqm|'''cqm''']] <sup>[[User talk:Cqm|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
::It is more in the sense that it allows them to if they feel they have a strong reason to bring up, more so in an oppose. {{User:Fjara/Signature}} 18:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' - While I think your conduct is ideal for a bureaucrat, I don't think the wiki is needing any new ones soon. RfAs are still very occasional and the current bureaucrat is very active. Maybe in a couple years or so. [[User:Ozank|Ozank]] ([[User talk:Ozank|talk]]) 19:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:Sorry but this is silly. There's a very good reason to have at least two active bureaucrats: if there's only one, then Spine is basically blocked from either nominating or supporting an RfA (or having any sort of opinion on the person whatsoever). I don't think this is a reasonable requirement to put on Spine, or any other specific individual. And this is not some theoretical argument: there was an RfA two years ago that had to be closed by an outside third party (Gaz) because both of the bureaucrats had a stated opinion. And that was with '''2''' active crats. {{Signatures/Cook Me Plox}} 23:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
::I'm glad Cook brought this up, as that situation was a perfect example of where having more crats would have helped. I think there's a reasonable argument that we as a wiki community should be more aggressive in encouraging admins to consider an RfB, rather than waiting until we desperately need one. While Ozank makes a valid point that RfAs are still very occasional, our wiki's spotty track record when it comes to those RfAs does highlight the importance of this dicsussion and the bureaucrat role in general. [[User:BigDiesel2m|BigDiesel2m]] ([[User talk:BigDiesel2m|talk]]) 03:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Support''' - A good admin and the right temperament to be a bureaucrat. I don't think that being particularly active in the forum namespace is a requirement for being a good bureaucrat, seems more like the opposite based on the current/past bureaucrats on os and rs3. Additionally I completely disagree that that a second isn't necessary  because the other one is currently active, I think it's prudent to have 2 active ones. {{Signatures/Elessar2}} 19:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Support''' - At first I wasn't entirely sure if jake would be a good pick for the crat role because he doesn't actively participate in Forum Discussions. But I changed my mind. I think it's nice to have a second active bureaucrat and I'm sure jake will do a great job finding consensus on delicate matters and won't let his own opinion get in the way. {{Signatures/Brok Enwings}} 20:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Support''' - I would like to see Jake given the chance to prove themselves, as they do seem genuine in their aspirations alongside the praise given by others above. [[User:Kosmiklove|Kosmiklove]] ([[User talk:Kosmiklove|talk]]) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Support''' - I think we definitely need an additional bureaucrat currently, and some of that reasoning is in my response to Ozank. That is fundamentally the reason for this RfB happening now (and being supportable).

As for Jake specifically, I think he is a nice combination of aware of wiki context/policy, able to express complex thoughts, and respected by everyone in the community. He's one of two people I would have supported here.{{Signatures/Cook Me Plox}} 23:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Support''' - {{User:Kelsey/Signature}} 23:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Support''' - I have had a number of interactions with Jake either directly, or as part of a larger discussion in my time as an actively participating member of the Wiki. Each time, Jake has maintained a professional attitude, and relevant contribution. Jake always maintains a neutral and balanced position on discussions, and from what I have seen they aspire to meet all expectations of Bureaucracy, should they be entitled. For what it is worth, my opinion is that Jake would be suitable for these additional responsibilities. [[User:Cerpin Taxt|Cerpin Taxt]] ([[User talk:Cerpin Taxt|talk]]) 02:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Support''' - There's been very very few times I can remember Jake ever being in some sort of conflict. I can't really think of any reason for Jake to not be a bureaucrat and a ''third'' one would be nice. {{User:Crow653/Signature}} 03:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Support''' - Only having 1 active bureaucrat isn't really ideal for the wiki. Jake is the best candidate for a new bureaucrat, as shown by his activity on the Discord server and overall involvement in the community, as pointed out by others too. [[User:Shayani|Shayani]] ([[User talk:Shayani|talk]]) 06:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Support''' – While RFAs are not common and at face value it means one active crat isn't overworked for whenever they do pop up, having multiple does allow for a more impartial outcome should the lone crat or two have a bias (as pointed out in Cook's example, and arguably in this very instance). In terms of eligibility, Jake is a good candidate as someone who has no notable history of controversy, conflict or inappropriate behavior and he is active in the community. --[[User:Julia|Julia]] <sup>[[User talk:Julia|talk]]</sup> 09:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Close''' - Brok asked me to close this last night while I was at the Dubai Mall. But I forgot, and proceeded to have fun at Ras al Khaimah to experience "The World’s Longest Zipline" certified by Guinness World Records with a 2.8kms span of zipwire and flying above the magnificent Jebel Jais. Anyway, Jake will be a bearcat. -- {{Signatures/Spineweilder}} 19:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)