Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Crzrussian

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Crzrussian

[edit]

Final: (12/13/3) Ended 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Crzrussian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) — I will be brief, bucking the recent trend for verbosity. Please ask me lots of questions if you feel I passed over anything.
  • I am an experienced administrator, and have been a very active one throughout. I've been here every day, clearing your backlogs. I am transparent, accountable, and speak bluntly - like a New Yorker in good standing should. I've had some amount of conflict and have earned the animosity of a couple wikipedians, but on a per-thousand-edit basis I am as uncontroversial as the next gal.
  • I have participated in many RfA's, did not skip too many over the past six months. I understand that a lot of worthy wikipedians value my opinions in RfA's and other consensus-driven processes such as AfD. I have received a considerable number of expressions of confidence on and off wiki, and have changed the course of several RfA's with a well put opinion. I understand evidence and consensus, and pledge to assign greater value to reasoned opinions than to per-nom's.
  • If elected, I pledge to keep track of RfA closing times and ensure that RfA's are closed quickly to eliminate second guessing and after-the-bell swings. I would like to ensure that a higher degree of certainty pervades the process. RfA/Kafziel 2 is case in point. We clearly need more crats.
  • I would also, of course, work on WP:CHU cases. I am not planning to touch Bot approvals - I know nothing about code.
  • I will be available for recall.
  • Thank you. - crz crztalk 04:48, 28 November 2006 (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. Yes, I have. I believe that results above 80% are near automatic (barring electioneering etc.) and results in the mid to high seventies need a closer examination and a weighing of the opinions. In all quesitonable cases I would of course speak with more experienced crats and not invade anything unilaterally.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. I would stay away from contentious nominations with close-call results until I got more experience. Then again, contentiousness does not change a bureaucrat's duties: a candidate still has community support if the opposition is vocal but small.
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. Yes I do. I believe that I possess an above-average knowledge of Wikipedia policies, in particular the deletion policy (not directly relevant here). I understand consensus, and rarely engage in per nom behavior, except in obvious cases. I have a very large amount of interaction with the people here, as evidence by my large number of talk edits of every kind, and my 20-some talk archives at 35-40 topics each.
4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on 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. I will.
5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?
A. Absolutely, as above.
6. What would you do if another bureaucrat expressed a concern that you incorrectly closed an RfA as sucessful?
A. Right now, I don't know the answer, but I don't think the situation is possible. As I said, I would exercise restraint at first, such that I would stay out of a sticky situation. In general, I would avoid the predicament by discussing the relevant question with other crats. But this is a nightmare scenario. I don't think it has ever happened, and I hope it never does.
6a. Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3. (Though other bureaucrats didn't express public disagreement that I know of, some members of the community were not happy with this promotion.)
A. 61% is not consensus. I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but the ArbCom does not promote RfA candidates. The ArbCom was at liberty, however, to rescind its own removal of adminship, something they've disavowed in Giano. I would not have promoted.
7.. Was your decision to run as a 'crat a spur of the moment thing or a deeply thought through one? I notice that you added your nom after an unsuccessful attempt to find a 'crat to close a borderline RFA you had nominated where late votes were threatening to chance the outcome. How would you counter suggestions that your attempt to encourage the closing of this RFA [1] was evidence of poor judgement - not because of any impropriety (because I'm sure there was none) but because of the appearance of impropriety? --Spartaz 05:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. My decision to run for crat was a spur of the moment thing - which is not to say that I didn't prep etc. I don't think there's an appearance of impropriety in anything I've done w/r/t that RfA, because everything was done in the open, onwiki, and no attempt to improperly influence the course of any process has taken place. I just asked for a closure, publicly, and even referred to it in my opening comments above, so you know I am not embarrassed of anything...
8.
A.

Comments

Support

  1. Support I trust this user.--Húsönd 05:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support yeah...all seems okay but the inexperience as an admin bothers me, but I think you will be good for the job †he Bread 05:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I trust this user's judgement, and am still impressed by how graciously he handled his recall. He seems to understand the intricacies of the RfA process far better than most, and I can't see him abusing the bit. riana_dzasta 05:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support. Unblocking yourself wasn't really a good idea, and by the RfB standards I have written down, I should be giving at least neutral for it. Shows why formulaic standards are bad, I guess, I still trust you enough to become a bureaucrat. Just don't mess up again. -Amarkov blahedits 05:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. It's a bit earlier than I thought, but I really think Alexander could do a good job as a 'crat, both based on the answers above and my prior experience. Alphachimp 07:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support — I believe you would make a good 'crat; We do need more, you've made mistakes.. we've all made mistakes, where only human. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I wish more users were as crazy as he is. Crz is a great contributor and a responsible admin, plus the sense of humor indispensable for these unthankful jobs. I have no doubt he will make a great bureaucrat. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I absolutely trust this user. --rogerd 12:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I would like more time since his recall and more time as an admin (as others have said), however I trust crz and don't think that it would cause trouble making him a bureaucrat, nor do I think that he would become a menace, and he is always up for recall (as demonstrated by his resignation as an admin) therefore my !vote is a firm support. James086Talk | Contribs 12:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. He's deeply immersed in the technicalities of administrivia. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Well, this came out of the blue. I will say I can trust him with the 'crat tools. I don't think he would promote WoW anytime soon. Yanksox 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support This RfB isn't perfect: in particular, I was saddened to learn that Crz is out of the ArbCom election. I suppose it's also true that a longer wait time since re-promotion would have been better. Still, I trust Crz's judgment and dedication to fairness -- he's a great candidate, even if the timing is a bit off, and his addition to the b'crat corps would be a boon to Wikipedia. Xoloz 16:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Sorry, dealings in the past have not given me the impression that you are ready for this job. I prefer candidates to have at least a year of experience as an admin first. You only have about 6 monthsish total. I believe your whole debacle with recall showed an immaturity of action that isn't a good thing for a b'crat. Plus you are crazy. (as admitted by your username) :) pschemp | talk 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Asylum-certified :) - crz crztalk 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: To me, the events that led to the administrative recall are still too recent for me to be fully confident in your judgment. (I do appreciate your willingness to accept your recall and go through RFA again, though.) Heimstern Läufer 05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, prematurity of this RfB casts additional questions on the candidate's suitability. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kimchi.sg 06:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Too early.[reply]
  5. Oppose, good admin and editor, but the time is not ripe for an RFB. It's just less than six months he became an admin (first RFA). I believe a 'crat needs to have around 9/10 months of administrative experience before becoming an administrator. You will make a good 'crat in future. --Terence Ong (C | R) 09:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Reluctant oppose, Crz, you know you my boy, but I'm a jerk. bureaucrats need to have been around for a while. All the other ones are older than dirt, which is how it should be. Proto::type 11:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, IMO there isn't that much value in additional time at this point. It's a question of trust, and being here for a very long time or a very very very long time is not going to make a candidate any more... trustworthy. Or so I think. :) - crz crztalk 12:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I am sorry, but now is not the time. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, while I do trust the candidate, I disagree with the "we need to have fixed ending time" thing which seems to be what this RfB is about. A fixed rule would be much easier to game than having our bureaucrats decide when to close. Kusma (討論) 14:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. An informed decision to extend taken and announced shortly after close eliminates the complained-of uncertainty. I stand for low-delay decision making process, not for automatic closure at 7 days and one minute. Thx. - crz crztalk 14:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your clarification. I think previous RfAs have shown that enforcing the end date by candidates or their supporters is frowned upon (see one of Tariqabjotu's RfA's). We probably generally need more patience for this situation, not more bureaucrats. However, I still don't think this is the right time for making you a bureaucrat, so I stay with my oppose. Kusma (討論) 15:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, at least for now. I would like to see Crzrussian spend more time as an admin before I can seriously consider him for this position. The incidents cited during his recall reflect lapses in judgement, and I need to know that such lapses will not be repeated. Six weeks simply is not long enough to satisfy me in this respect. Crzrussian has always struck me as a nice guy, but this alone isn't good enought to be a bureaucrat - one needs to be able to act in a consistently level-headed and professional manner. Rje 14:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Too early.--MariusM 16:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 17:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I'm very sorry, I cannot support at this time, as much as I'd love a new 'crat, due to it being premature – your second RfA was only about 1½ months ago, after a desysoppingbeing recalled. --Majorly 17:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere near a desysopping. Resignation. - crz crztalk 17:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very sorry, my mistake :) I'll remove my comment for now. --Majorly 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Still oppose, I'm afraid. Better to give it a little longer from your last RfA. --Majorly 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Per less than helpful response to a comment I made regarding an RfA of a candidate he nominated. I suggested how a general agreement might be reached on the RfA and he replied "So go oppose it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with crat decisionmaking." [2] I'd prefer that bureaucrats didn't take the result of an RfA so personally. SuperMachine 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. NeutralMoved to support, see belowpossibly hinging on support if you expand answers to the questions. Non-verbosity is nice, but your answer to question 3 just restates the question. Your history looks fine on everything I care about, but your answers don't give enough detail for an evaluation. -Amarkov blahedits 04:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3 expanded. - crz crztalk 05:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added another question, sorry if this seems like making you jump through hoops. -Amarkov blahedits 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, somehow I missed the block log. Could you explain the circumstances surrounding the August 6 block? -Amarkov blahedits 05:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Crzrussian_2 - crz crztalk 05:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew I recognized your name from somewhere in my RfA archive digging. (Don't ask why I did that.) Moved to support. -Amarkov blahedits 05:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral while awaiting answers to q7. It looks like this isn't going to go through so I'm staying Neutral - no need to add to the oppose count for a well intentioned, hardworking and very likable admin. My original comment - I must say this RFB appears a little too spur of the moment - seems very appropriate. Being a 'crat is a big deal and applying for it should follow careful thought about your suitability. It shouldn't be applied for in a fit of pique because you don't like the way an RFA is going. This doesn't demonstrate good judgement which is the basic pre-requisite for being a 'crat. Sorry. --Spartaz 05:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#Neutral I love Crz, and would support unreservedly, except that he's also running for ArbCom soon, and gaining those two positions so close together strikes me as odd. Focus on one candidacy at a time. Xoloz 06:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Switched to support. Xoloz 16:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He withdrew his Arbcom statement some time ago. riana_dzasta 07:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I trust Crz, and consider him a good wikifriend, but I agree it's a bit too soon since the recall motion. I would be very happy to support in about six to eight months, since you haven't been an admin long either. – Chacor 10:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Crzrussian&oldid=1146639249"