Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Fr33kman

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or request for checkusership. Please do not modify it.

Fr33kman

Fr33kman (talk · contribs)

End date: 20:27, July 21, 2009 Hey there, this is Shappy, and I'm nominating Fr33kman for bureaucratship. Fr33kman has been an admin at SEWP for four and a half months, and has been a guiding force for the project, showing exemplary calmness and leadership ability. He works hard doing admin duties, with over 500 log actions and almost 4500 edits. Fr33kman knows how to work with consensus, is extremely dedicated to the Encyclopedia (one of our best article reviewers!), and has the experience necessary to become a bureaucrat. I can only see him excelling working with bot flags, renames, and RfXs. Shappy ^talk 19:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Goblin 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!: I'm co-nominating Fr33kman for bureaucratship because I think that he is a 100% net positive to the simple project. He has lots of ideas to take the wiki forward, he contributes actively in discussions, can determine consensus and is always "fighting" for what is "right" and "just" for the wiki and to make it a better place. As Shappy mentions, he has lots of edits and log actions, proving his worth with the admin tools. He is also a good content editor, article reviewer and is active in many community processes including P(V)GA and DYK. Good luck! Goblin 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

Candidate's acceptance: Thank you both for your kind words. If promoted I will always honour the comminuties trust in me and continue to work as a team with all editors, admins and crats. I accept the nomination. fr33kman ^talk 20:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Optional Questions

1. from NonvocalScream (talk)
Q: For an RFA, could you list a couple of arguments you consider bearing heavy weight and two arguments bearing the weight of a feather with gathering consensus for a candidate so that I get an idea of your ideas?
A: Thank you for your question: If I may, I'll refrain from using specific examples from actual RFAs RFBs that have occurred and rather discuss the types of comments that I think would be helpful and the types of comments that would be less helpful. I believe that thoughtful contributions to an RFA/B that consider the candidates abilities and talks about the qualities that mwould ake them a good candidate or a poor candidate are important, a. For example, talking about how a candidate has done work towards helping with the aims of the project such as mainspace editing (including discussions on article talk pages), article creations (including both major edits and minor edits such as copyediting), taking part in community discussions on WP:ST, WP:RFD, WP talk pages and their making use of admin-like actions such as rollback, WP:AN, WP:AIV carry a good deal of weight either for or against the candidate. A discussion of their knowledge or lack thereof of the main policies and guidelines would also be useful. Talking about a candidate having a responsible or irresponsible attitude and behavior towards the work we do here and towards other people who edit here or visit is useful to a closing crat. Supports or opposes that deal merely with how popular or unpopular a candidate is without dealing with the persons abilities to perform the role of an admin or bureaucrat would be less helpful. Whether or not a person uses IRC is completely unimportant to the discussion. Simple comments that have no reasons to accompany them (ie: just a signature) are not very helpful at all; but probably also can't just be summarily dismissed either. I would hope people would encourage the person making them to expand on their reasoning. Fly-by comments from totally inactive editors, or comments from very new editors would be listened to but might not carry the same weight as would other comments; it'd be a case-by-case basis. In summary, each election is an individual affair and the reasoning a crat would use to close it should be tailored to that process. Hope this helps. fr33kman ^talk 16:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat the nom Support!!! Per my co-nom Goblin 20:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nickers!
2. Fr33kman is a great example of what we look for in an admin and I believe will do very well in the 'crat role. He is trustworthy, mature, calm, knowledgeable and dedicated. While we have a few other 'crats, to be perfectly honest, I don't see them editing here often (aside from Chenzw), and having another active 'crat on the project would be helpful. Good luck! EhJJ^TALK 21:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support As nom. Shappy ^talk 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
4. I have had a very good impression of this editor. I have had several discussions with him, and believe he is an excellent admin. Bureaucrat work is, of course, just as simple as admin work, if not simpler, so no hesitation from me to support for bureaucrat. Majorly talk 22:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
5. I think that Fr33kman is a very good editor as well as an admin. I believe he will make a good 'crat. Even though there are already enough 'crats, another isn't going to kill us. Exert 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Fr33kman is helpeful, knowledgeable, and friendly. For what more can we ask? hmwithτ 23:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. What's the harm of having another 'crat, even if it means he'll get bored with his tools?-- Tdxiang 03:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
8. We have no problem if we have another 'crat. Also, F33ky is one of our best users. Pmlineditor 14:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Who cares if we have enough crats? More can never hurt. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Well, let's think of it in different terms. We may have five flagged bureaucrats, but right now only Kennedy and Chenzw are fully active. The Rambling Man is on a break; Eptalon is on a break; Vector hasn't been seen for a while. So currently, there are two active bureaucrats. Another active one is fine by me. PeterSymonds (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - C'mon, it's just one bureaucrat; no harm done. иιƒкч? 09:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Support; yes, on a personal level I think our doctor comes close to ideal for the job. :-) -- Mentifisto 09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Very helpful, knowledgeable, and of course, trustworthy. — RyanCross (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - we need active crats. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Support: RFA/RFB are designed to reflect upon an editors skills, edits, and positive/negative contributions to the encyclopedia and to decide whether we can trust them with some extra buttons. Not to decided whether more crats/admins are needed. whether we need more or not I think is irrelevant to Fr33kman contributions and ability to work with the tools. In my opinion at least.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Support - I have known Fr33kman for some time and I know he will do a good job. Simon^KSK 23:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose As I had recent opportunity to point out here, the only people who are nominated for RfB should be such that giving them tools results in a net gain to the encyclopedia. Wait, what? We're talking about one of those users? Than I guess I have to Support. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Sure, fine with this. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 01:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
20. I don't see any issues here. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
21. No problem with giving him the bit at all. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Support as I believe all admins should be 'crats after a sufficient amount of time of showing they have clue. Soup Dish (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Support --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Support: No reason to oppose. Could definitely use the tools. Good luck! Airplaneman (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - I've been thinking, and watching, and reading, and as I know he will do a good job, I cannot oppose. Kennedy (talk • changes). 14:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, Fr33kman, but I have to oppose. We have currently five bureaucrats. One is still very active (Chenzw). Eptalon is probably taken a summer break and I hope he’ll be back soon. Vector and Kennedy are only sometimes active. An TRM left us, I think, but I am not sure, at least he isn’t as active as in the last months. If we want more active ‘crats, we need first to de-‘crat the not active ones and elect then new ones. Five flagged ‘crates out of 40 admins (and about 20 active) on such a small Wikipedia isn’t necessary. I think Fr33kam will be a fine ‘crat, but a 6th ‘crat is not necessary. I opposed the last RfB's for the same reason. The next things aren't really my oppose reason, but I want to say it: Furthermore, I don’t think, that you have every time a right judgment (I refer to this, the sentence:’’” My reasons for support also include a desire to see the whole NVS/BG7 issue reset to the way it was prior to its happening.”’’) This sounds like; you want to ignore what had happened. We can’t ignore what had happened; we have to live with the past. That’s all I want to say. Anyway, I wish you good luck. I don’t have any worries, if you get the tools. I believe you’ll make a fine ‘crat. Last but not least: You you get promoted, you have my full trust. Barras (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for your comments Barras, I understand. I don't want to ignore what has happened in the NVS/BG7 affair, but I've also spoken privately to both of them and both have admitted mistakes in the handling of the affair and I believe that both have learned some very useful lessons, lessons that I believe they will take on board in the future. Cheers :-) fr33kman ^talk 20:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   Anyway, after this comment of one of our 'crats, it is clear, that they don't need emergency help from another user. So we don't need to elect an other one. Just to notice it. Barras (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   I think you've misinterpreted his comment. He says he is "not sure" that another crat is required, not that they don't need any help. Even so, will it hurt SEWP is Fr33kman becomes a crat? Shappy ^talk 23:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   You can't really fault him for staying consistent. If he opposed when we had one less 'crat then it makes sense that he would oppose when we have one more 'crat. -Djsasso (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   His reasons are fine :-) fr33kman ^talk 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   @Shappy: If Kennedy had said: We need help... But when he say, he isn't sure, so I think we have enough 'crats. And no, it doesn't harm when Fr33kman becomes a 'crat. But we really don't need 6 'crats for about 25 to 30 active users. That is nonsense. Barras (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Moral support. I think know Fr33k would do a fine job, but I'm not sure another crat is required. If I see alternative arguments during the time of this discussion, I may change my vote. Right now though, I'm sitting on the fence. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ BG7) 21:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Moral support - Per above. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   I knew this argument would come up. Just because there is no dire need for a crat doesn't mean a fine, experienced, hard-working admin should be given the crat tools to help out. He won't cause any harm with the tools. Shappy ^talk 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   Well if that's the case, we may as well give crat rights to every admin... Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 06:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

2. I am sure this will be taken wrong by some people. But I find you a bit too much of a people pleaser. You try to make sure everyone is happy all the time which is often not the best course of action. And a 'Crat is going to be called on sometimes to make a difficult decision in a situation where one or more people will need to be upset. I can't see you being able to put the good of the wiki ahead of making sure the people involved are happy. The most recent example is of course your attempt to try and be fair and to just reset the BG/NVS situation like it never happened. Please understand I have the utmost respect for you as an admin and as an editor. I just don't know if you could make the tough calls sometimes required of a 'Crat. -Djsasso (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   Well, it won't be taken wrong by me, I respect your comment! I'd say that I am a diplomat rather than a people pleaser. I feel that behind the keyboard of each username is a real live person. Treating them all with respect is not the same as people pleasing. I didn't come to my decision to support BG7 getting the bit back easily. I thought about it a great deal first and was very unsure about it; I still am in some ways. I chose to support him because I felt that ultimately he had broken no actual rule or policy, in my opinion, at the time he resigned; he just made some unwise decisions. I agree that resigning the bit was wrong and rash and I told BG7 that in no uncertain terms, but as I couldn't say that he had broken the rules (only acted in very poor judgment) I felt I had to give him my support. Personally, I feel BG7 has done a few things poorly as an admin, making threats to delete all the other one-line stubs for instance. But, I guess I feel that he should have undergone a desysoping really, rather than have his bit removed by his rash resignation; and in that discussion I might have supported his losing the bit as the delete the stubs threat really bothered me. As for making tough calls and possibly unpopular ones, I believe that if you look you'll probably find that I've done that somewhere. As to whether or not I'm capable of doing so, you betcha! I think telling BG7 and NVS they both acted poorly onwiki shows that I'm not all a nice guy! :-) Thanks for your comments! fr33kman ^talk 23:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

3. Normally, I would support Fr33kman's candidature. But do we really need 6 crats on such a small wiki like this? -- Mercy (☎|✍) 14:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Per my support.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)