Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Blankfaze

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

blankfaze[edit]

(17/11/4) final - request withdrawn

Well, me lads and me ladies, I have little knowledge as to the degree of need for new bureaucrats, or in fact whether such a need even exists. I do, though, follow this page relatively closely, and as such I offer my services as a potential bureaucrat. Some of you may be familiar with my "controversial" standards for admin candidates; I pledge, though, to not let those personal opinions unduly influence any decisions I may make should this request be approved. I have some notes on the position of bureaucrat here.

For those of you who may not be familiar with me, I've been registered for just over a year, a sysop for just over 9 months, and I have a little more than 8,000 edits. See my user page or ask about any other details. :-) BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aye, aye, captain! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to all who supported me here — but it's come time to hang up my shoes on this. I mainly did this out of curiousity, to see if I could. That's not to say I wasn't serious about it, though. Anyhow, I appreciate compliments given here, and I hope the users opposing, or at least, most of them, will reconsider perhaps sometime in the future. I hereby withdraw this request. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1.  ALKIVAR™ 21:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. ✏ OvenFresh² 22:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. RickK You bet.
  4. Definitely trustworthy. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Gamaliel 04:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Certainly. jni 05:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Merovingian (t) (c) 11:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Mike H 11:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Rje 12:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Cool. I trust RickK on this. JuntungWu 13:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. I still feel we need new bureaucrats, and blankfaze is fit to be such. Andre (talk) 17:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  12. I know who you are well. Not faceless like many candidates, so support. Hedley 19:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Trampled talk 22:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (assuming non-admins can vote here)
  14. Of course. ugen64 02:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  15. Admin standards are agreeable.--Jondel 04:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. A great user. --Neigel von Teighen 21:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Has consistently insulted me without the slightest provocation. I don't know if such a person is even fit to be an admin, let alone a bureaucrat. Everyking 22:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Hasty. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I could certainly say the same of you ([1] [2] [3]), but then you're not the subject of this request. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose due to behavior on the following pages (moved to comments section). Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 02:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Netoholic @ 05:30, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  5. Not yet, maybe at a later date--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 09:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose.--Chammy Koala 12:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Noisy | Talk 16:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 17:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Not just no, but hell no. Evidence coming soon. --Lst27 (talk) 21:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Just read this [4]. --Lst27 (talk) 21:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps I should not be so open with it — but there are folks in this world I simply don't care for, as I'm sure is the case for you as well. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Geni 11:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Seems to a bit too confrontational. Sjakkalle 07:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Wikipedia:list of bureaucrats shows 18 active bureaucrats - surely that is enough for now, given that the only significant bureaucrat task is promoting admins. Arguably, the 2 listed inactive bureaucrats should be "de-bureaucratted" (which is surely not such a large step as "de-adminning"). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'm on the fence, and will probably remain there. I trust Blankfaze's judgement, but his statement in his Notes on bureaucratship that, essentially, he'd pass the buck on the tough cases makes me quite hesitant to support. —Korath (Talk) 20:08, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand your hesitation. The statement is meant to mean really that in a truly tough call I'd rather defer judgement to a bureaucrat who's been one longer and as such who's more likely to have made a tough call before, and could better deal with any ensuing flack. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. I'd support if I thought we needed more bureaucrats. BrokenSegue 23:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. I believe there should be a cap on the number of bureaucrats, maybe 10 as Emsworth said below, and that we don't need any new bureaucrats at this time. Yet I don't have the heart to outright oppose such a valuable and committed member as blankfaze. I do believe that bureaucrats, distributors of the keys to the building, should be people who basically have unanimous community support, and for whatever reason, there is some broad community resistance to blankfaze being a distributor of the keys. There are many roles in Wikipedia, and sometimes the very attributes that make a person good at filling one particular role may make him *not* a good choice for filling one of the other roles. This is the case with blankfaze, his strong efforts and controversial cutting edge ideas may step on too many toes to make him appropriate for the role of bureaucrat. My best to blankfaze, --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:14, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Wow. I figured I'd see some opposition, but this is a surprise. I don't even remember ever so much as interacting with six of the users opposing... :-) BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Blankfaze's reply:
    • Wow. I don't know what to say to half of this stuff. I don't mean to be rude, but you've greatly, drastically misunderstood just about everything you've cited here.
    • As to the Administrator Accountability Policy, I was never trying to "take ownership" of the proposal, I was only asking that as the proposer, I be allowed to formulate the basic structure of the policy and the timetable for which to hold discussion and voting. That is a common courtesy allowed to proposal creators here on a regular basis. I could cite you a number of examples of this. The user in question was making disruptive, antagonistic, and plain bad faith edits.
    • Well, I'm afraid we just disagree on this. I don't think a bureaucrat should be required to discuss how he/she values certain votes or particular arguments. That's just asking for a big fight.
      • Actually, according to the paragraph above, it would seem you do have to: Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions. -Kbdank71 14:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The "disendorsements" page was a joke from the very beginning. It turned the whole election process into a big ugly middle-school foodfight. The endorsements page was set up initially for users to make POSITIVE commments about candidates. As for my "snide" replies, look at users making the disendorsements :-P.
    • I don't see what is objectionable about my involvement with the Association of Member Investigations...
    • Haha. That was meant as a joke. Honestly. Sorry if it doesn't srike your fancy.
    • Lastly, my reply to Mirv was not meant to be snide — I was just pointing out that I don't think you should go throwing stones if you live in a glass house. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • For anyone wondering where all this came from, I asked Taco Deposit to elaborate on his reasons for opposing, out of curiousity, because I can't recall any interaction with him at all. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote, just a comment: It has been noted that there are 18 "active" bureaucrats. I would just like to point out that of these, not more than 7 have actually promoted a candidate this year. A majority of bureaucrats do not seem to be doing anything at all. I do not mean that the nominee is likely to do nothing with his powers; nor do I mean any disrespect for the current bureaucrats. However, I would think it wise to reform the system, perhaps by setting a limit on the number of possible holders of this position. (By no means do we need more than 10.) -- Emsworth 23:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Since the sysop questions don't really seem to fit, feel free to place any questions you'd like an answer to here :-). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
Aye aye. Criteria for promotion? See this. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
Firstly, I'd consider extending the nomination and posting a notice at the top of WP:RFA, as Cecropia has done a few times. Then, if the situation was still shaky, I'd make the decision I thought was best, by considering the merit of users both supporting and opposing, as well as any specific objections/compliments. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Blankfaze&oldid=1138654815"