Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Phroziac


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it .

Phroziac
Final (8/10/2) ended 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been an admin for 5 months now, and a wikipedian for 8. I'd like to help out here. My intention here is the same as Titoxd's, though I came here before I knew he was up as well. That is, the workload on RFA will steadily grow as the site does. Hopefully, we'll get a new rollback flag, and that will increase the workload. I don't think "we don't need any bureaucrats" is a good reason to oppose a candidate, because it doesn't hurt anything to have a few extra. Holidays, wikibreaks, etc, all mean that we really should have more than we need anyway. I do still feel that we need more bureaucrats, however.

A lot of people will probably oppose me because of some silly support messages I made on RFA in the past...I only did this to add a little humor, and the votes they were attached to were just as serious as any other. I never did this on an oppose, as those are more serious. At no point did anyone simply ask on my user talk page to stop; if they did, then I would have. People were beating around the bush and I tought they simply disliked a certain vote message I had used. Regardless, that was many months ago. --Phroziac. o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Totally Support because Phroziac is awesome. (BTW...why did I suddenly decide that P was an arbcom member? I was about to vote wtf? Neutral). &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  03:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, only here for 8 months? I'm sure I've seen you before :\ &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  03:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support ok --Jaranda wat's sup 03:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No problems here. Hope you make it! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  08:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) People who aren't loose cannons should be 'crats. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support; we do need more bureaucrats. Ral315 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) 'Support. Trust worthy. Compu  te  r  Jo  e 15:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Not sure whether we need more 'crats, but adding this trusted user to the list certainly can't do any harm.--Doc ask?  13:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Rob Church (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Very difficult time deciding my vote, as per my vote on Titoxd's RFB. This is nothing personal, but I'm opposed to RFR being an excuse for RFB before it is even implemented. I did originally express on Titoxd's RFB that I would support if RFR does pass, and I will support in one to two months if RFR passes. NSL E (T+C) 03:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to mention that I did not intend for the RFR comment to be an excuse to need me, but rather an additional reason for it. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I see no critical backlog of bureaucratic chores and see no need to appoint new bureaucrats with a new learning curve.  If at some point in the future it becomes necessary to appoint new bureaucrats, we can do it then.  It only takes seven days. —Cleared as filed. 04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) You're a fine sysop and editor, but I afraid I have to oppose as per Cleared as file. I'm sorry. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) The reasons given in the nomination are uncompelling. Having few bureaucrats is sensible in order to keep things as homogenous and consistent as possible. Imo, there does need to be a reason to make someone a bureaucrat, whereas making someone an admin can happen if they look like good editor and have a good idea of what an admin is and does. RfR does not exist, and relying on that to request bureaucratship is rather pointless at present. Fears of a future RfA backlog can be dealt with when it happens; it takes only 7 days to make some more 'crats. -Splash talk 12:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I've been impressed by several astute comments the editor has made lately, but I agree with Cleared as filed in this case. Xoloz 13:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Cleared. Jonathunder 19:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Reluctant Oppose I'm sorry, Phroziac. It's not that we have too many already. I just don't think this is a necessary promotion for you at the moment. Next time around, in a few months, my opinion shall change, especially if RFR is in full swing. Acetic Acid 23:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Oppose without prejudice per Cleared As Filed and the rationale stated in the last five RfB's I've voted in. For the record, Phroziac seriously rocks (I ♥♥♥♥ Phroziac), but we just don't need more bureaucrats.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. As with Titoxd below, he's awesome, but I would expect a ton of experience as an admin, not 5 months.     Proto    ||    type    14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I'm not entirely convinced you've made your case for why you should become a bureaucrat. I'm willing to change my mind, though, so I'll be following this nomination closely. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I generally have a 1 year term of serivce for 'crat votes. xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  00:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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, but not all of it. The criteria for promotion is a rough consensus with no major disqualifications.
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. I would discuss it with the other bureaucrats. I would make sure that they are aware of any reasons i feel any votes should be discounted, and all major disqualifications.
 * 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. Vandals and revert warriors (and occasionally casual 3RR violators) hate me. I've never misused admin powers (some would argue otherwise of course, but the main thing I mean is that I've never used them in content disputes and things). I've closed many AFDs (mostly ones with a delete consensus), and speedily deleted many articles, with only a handful of objections. I recently ran for arbitratorship, and the vote ended with just over 50%. I still didn't make the cut, but it doesn't really matter. I just want to help out where I can, I'm not looking for ungodly amounts of power or anything.
 * 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. Yes.
 * 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. Yes. I'm a hardcore wikipedia addict, as well as a masochist.


 * ''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.