Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Fr33kman 2
Fr33kman
change- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
- Result: Not successful Hello, unfortunately I cannot promote Fr33kman to bureaucreat; our criteria stipulate a suport percentage of 85%. This means that with 9 valid votes (not counting my opinion, which would be in support), that would mean we need 7.6 votes in support (either 7 or 8 votes). At the moment, we have 6 support votes. As a comparison: Ferien was elected to Bureaucrat two years ago, with 19 votes. One of these was in opposition (otherwise put: 94.7% in support). So even with my support we would be at 7 of 10 votes, which is still far from the support percentange wanted. --Eptalon (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
| RfB of Fr33kman |
|---|
| Previous RfBs: 1 2 |
| global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted blocks · protects · deletes · moves · rights |
| Last comment by: Eptalon. |
| There are 16 administrators, and 5 bureaucrats (31%). |
End date: 02:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
We don't have a lot of bureaucrats that are active as evidenced by a recent RfDA. In that case only one active non-involved crat had the ability to comment since someone had to be able to close the request. Whilst the number crats is high, the number of crats that are active is very low. We further need to address the lack of the semi-active crats and see if they are going to engage more activities or not.
Self nomination fr33kman 02:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Optional questions
changeSupport
change- --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 02:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I thought he already was one. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 08:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, he is a CheckUser. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Don't see much of a problem with granting fr33kman the crat flag, since he used to be one and the majority of my concerns at his last RfP was exclusive to that specific group, rather than him as an editor.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- fr33kman has my full support. Peterdownunder (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Used to be one and I don't see the problem with them becoming one again. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I've said before, there are very few people I trust more on Wikipedia than Fr33kman. I appreciate the concerns of those in opposition, but my personal experience with this editor for over a decade has been nothing but positive. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
change- I don't really feel the need for more crats right now; ofc we need more active admins. Plus some concerns from previous request like the grant of flood flag makes me lean towards this side, sorry.--BRP ever 12:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. My reason for applying is the lack of active crats and that as I was one before it has long been custom to give the flag back upon the endorsement of two current crats. fr33kman 14:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest, that is the very reason as to why I as a crat am unsure of which way I will swing on this request, either offering my endorsement or neutral. Stewardry shows we have three crats that have edited in the past two days and all but one have edited this month. I don't think 60% of crats counting as active is too bad, compared to the <50% rate of the admin group as a whole. In the example of the RfdA, I don't think Eptalon offered a comment on it because he was neutral and was probably willing to close it – that is why he usually doesn't get involved in RfAs. At the same time, I don't see any negative in offering the crat hat to you especially as a former crat, I just don't think there is a strong need. --Ferien (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- When thinking about this request, I decided not to include the semi-actives because they are less visible to the community and rarely work on what crat actions do come up and not because they never use the tool. I do agree there is not a strong need and am cool with whichever way this ends. fr33kman 19:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest, that is the very reason as to why I as a crat am unsure of which way I will swing on this request, either offering my endorsement or neutral. Stewardry shows we have three crats that have edited in the past two days and all but one have edited this month. I don't think 60% of crats counting as active is too bad, compared to the <50% rate of the admin group as a whole. In the example of the RfdA, I don't think Eptalon offered a comment on it because he was neutral and was probably willing to close it – that is why he usually doesn't get involved in RfAs. At the same time, I don't see any negative in offering the crat hat to you especially as a former crat, I just don't think there is a strong need. --Ferien (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. My reason for applying is the lack of active crats and that as I was one before it has long been custom to give the flag back upon the endorsement of two current crats. fr33kman 14:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Crat oppose I'm sorry, I was really wanting to overlook the last RfO BRPever mentions. The reason I opposed that was due to actions taken at the time that didn't align with expected use and quickly regaining the tool despite these problematic actions. A recent response to a CU request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Tata Socks convinces me you are still rushing into actions that you shouldn't be. Simply creating multiple accounts is not sufficient evidence of abusing multiple accounts and I would expect a checkuser to be familiar with this. Regardless of whether you are aware of this or not, the impact of these actions is identical to that of not knowing policy. I would continue to ask you to not rush into actions and slow down. I'm not sure who would determine whether my objection is valid or not (WP:CFB) but this crat objection transforms this into a full RfB in which the community can vote in, like a normal RfA. --Ferien (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Ferien, Like Ferien I was going to let the prev RFO slide and had every intention of supporting here until I read Ferien's reply, I do agree it's strange those 2 accounts were created minutes apart but there were no reasons to block but anyway on the other hand I also find it very strange you would oppose any action on those accounts (Nothing to do here)[[1] and then a day later block them (Accts blocked. No CU actions required)[[2], I appreciate we're all human and all make mistakes but imho this is too concerning to brush under the carpet and ignore unfortunately, Thanks for your contributions and hardwork here though they're always much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments
change- The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.