Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Maxim

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.

Contents

[edit] Maxim

Thank you for all your comments; this has definitely been a valuable learning experience.

Final (10/22/3); Ended 12:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maxim (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - Maybe I should be bold as well... I've been an admin since June 30th 2007, and an editor since around February 2007. You can call me an oddity among RfB candidates - I contribute quite a bit of content; my userpage is more of a "trophy" case than anything else. I clear admin backlogs a lot, hence my slightly absurd deletion count.

As a bureaucrat, I think the first place I'd help out would be changing usernames. I'm quite good at clearing out repetitive backlogs, and my numerous edits to WP:UAA and numerous usernames blocks show familiarity with policy. I think crats may get tired of doing renames - I think so because of personal experience. C:CSD used to be extremely backlogged before the patrol feature, and I would take an hour or two and delete around a hundred articles. Of course, I got quite tired of it, and then the patrol feature was implemented. I would be very willing to do that job. At RfA, I'm more of an observer than commenter. RfA is usually the first thing I put on my watchlist after I clear it, as I like to keep track of happens around. I've observed numerous discussions at RfA, about almost every topic possible, ranging from percentages to thank-you notes. As for flagging bots, this is the only area that's not very backlogged. It's not a common discussion topic at WP:BN, either. 'Crats, usually lately WJBscribe (:D) flag bots at the advice of the Bot Approvals Group and WP:BRFA, and I believe I'd be able to that on a regular basis, too.

I care about this project very much, and I hope to be trusted with some extra buttons. If the community doesn't trust me, I'd still continue my regular activities here, like clearing the admin backlogs and writing more articles. Maxim(talk) 01:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. I'm very aware of the differing opinions about when a bureaucrat promotes or doesn't. It's not exactly the bureaucrat's decision to make User X an admin - the community decides whether to make User X an admin. The criteria to promote is consensus, a rough agreement between numerous users. Traditionally, there have been percentages associated with RfAs; everything over 80% is the sweet-spot for a promote; anything below 70% is almost always a fail. The area between 70% to 80% is the bureaucrat's discretion area; there have been few promotes under 70% and few fails above 75%. Percentages is a decent thermometer of the community's agreement, but they shouldn't be exclusively used to judge consensus.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. RfA is one of the more contentious process on Wikipedia; bureaucrats are especially entrusted to close contentious nominations. With contentious noms, a "bureaucrat chat" has often proved useful in determining the community's view on whether the aforementioned User X should be an admin. Another important step when closing a contentious RfA is to present a rationale as to why the 'crat closed it. I fell that I am prepared for the rush of constructive criticsm, hecklers, per abovers that would comment on such a close. The most important thing is to remain civil and calm, and don't try to stamp out discussions - we all care if we've come to discuss a close of an RfA, which a rather important yet contentious matter.
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. I was in an incident about an unblock a few days back. I took a stance on the issue others didn't agree with me - that's OK; not everybody agrees with you. As a human being, sometimes I may have a lapse in judgment, and on that aforementioned occasion, I certainly did have a lapse in judgment and made an error. When closing an RfA, such mistakes are not easily undone - I'm not planning to unilaterally fiddle with RfAs against community consensus, as that would be a gross breach of trust. I honestly think I'm a fair and knowledgeable user who can engage others in the community; I let my contributions do the taking for the rest.
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. I don't think we need another essay for this question, my answer is very simple - yes.
Optional Question from VanTucky
5. What is your assessment on the recent resysopping of ^demon, despite the reconfirmation RFA closing with less than 65% support? How would you have closed it and why? If you are uncomfortable answering this question, simply say so.
A.

[edit] General comments

  • See Maxim's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • On weekdays, I'm usually unavailable from 03:00 UTC until about 20:00 UTC. Please be patient while awaiting my replies. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 02:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support. For being bold. I trust him to not make any stupid/rash decisions. Malinaccier (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. I've never had reason to question the candidate's integrity or wisdom, and I have no concerns about their judgement in those matters under the purview of the bureaucrats. Good editor, and a Quality admin. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Good admin, has my complete trust. --Agüeybaná 02:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support No question. I trust him with the extra tools. Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 02:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Dlohcierekim 02:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support I don't see any overly concerning problems. Captain panda 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support: Another familiar user here, and I know of no reasons not to support. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support - I think he would make a good crat as well.   jj137 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support 'bout time someone shakes it up a little. Mønobi 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support - He's made a couple of mistakes, but I beleive it's safe to trust him.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 05:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Per me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Just a simple candidate's general statement and request - Jeff's rationale is that we don't need more 'crats. I respectfully disagree, and there's no need to create unnecessary conflict by bugging him, as I've seen his comments at many other RfBs as well, and he probably won't change his position. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 02:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Maxim lacks the judgement to be an effective ‘crat. His deletionist attitude to images demonstrates a poor general outlook, in my opinion, which I would not like to see in a ‘crat. Furthermore, the fact that he is highly defensive of his actions and refuses to acknowledge a clear mistake is not something I would like to see. I believe that if granted +crat, Maxim could misuse or even abuse the tools, in areas of RfX, but also in bot areas; he recently requested an AdminBot flag on Commons, which I believe was an extremely poor idea. As a ‘crat I have concerns he could perform similarly poor bot-related actions. I suggest Maxim rethink his attitude to adminship and the project before considering a future RfB, and I strongly oppose. I disagree with Jeffrey dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    What is the difference whether I lean toward deletionism or inclusionism? Too much of something is bad, but does leaning one way or another impair my judgment? I'm surprised you say I can't acknowledge mistakes - I've mistakes, and I've not always considered it to be a mistake. What leads you to believe that I'll abuse my possible rights as a 'crat to flag a bot? Do you think I will give myself a bot flag just because I want to? That's not exactly a smart thing to do, it'll get reversed and most of the community wouldn't want me to remain a 'crat anymore, and in turn I would resign. I hopefully think we can agree that that situation won't have, right? Maxim(talk) 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    I have nothing against you being deletionist or inclusionist, but it's the strength of your deletionism that concerns me. Using a script where you can't get talk page messages, for instance, is too far IMO, and if it was up to me you wouldn't be allowed to use it. As for mistakes, I believe the unblock of Mikka was a mistake, as does, from what I've observed, almost everyone else who commented at ANI in relation to that. Recognising mistakes initially is one think, not recognising consensus on your mistakes is even more concerning. Next, I'm not suggesting you might give yourself a rogue bot flag, or something like that, but I am concerned you may flag innapropriately, based on the requests you've made for your own bot flags. Finally, I'm interested to see you mention resigning - are you suggesting a "bureaucrats open to recall", and if so, do you have a criteria for this? Oh, and for the record (just in case anyone says anything) I don't care that you've only been an admin for 6 months, and I would support someone who passed RfA on the same date as you but who had behaved differently ("behaviour" is subjective, obviously). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: I have noticed many of the same concerns as Dihydrogen Monoxide. As an admin, I've found Maxim less than ideally willing to consider that he may be wrong, and I think it would be a mistake to make him a bureaucrat for this reason. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per me on Mr.Z-man's RfB, except even more so. Prodego talk 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. I like Maxim, but his refusal to discuss Mikka's unblock makes me unable to support for B. Here is the thread. Ronnotel (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Per the second unblock, the lack of respect for policy, another statement about not following basic policy. Sorry you rubbed me the wrong way in the Mikkalai situation. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - but not personally. I believe that there is a need for more 'crats, but I want them to be just the RIGHT crats. Maxim might be it, but nothing I've seen from him yet has demonstrated that to me. - Philippe | Talk 03:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Maxim's actual actions have appeared to be good, but his problematic stance on communicating about administrative actions seems like a significant negative in a position of higher trust such as Bureaucrat. B's have to be people that the community will find trustworthy over time, not just people who only act in trustworthy ways. I think that I trust Maxim's judgement, but not his communications, and this is a necessary cause to oppose for me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, demonstrable bad decision-making (see Mikka), and a hard-line deletionism regarding images make this an easy call. 'Crats are all about good judgement, and I haven't seen evidence of such from Maxim. Bellwether BC 04:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Just too much drama surrounding this user. I feel many of the same issues that Dihydrogen Monoxide raised to be true. Along with negative interactions with this user, and a current admin that I feel is unwilling to admit that he is wrong I just can not support. I feel that he needs to re-think his current adminship before running for crat. Tiptoety talk 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. I do not believe we should have more bureaucrats at the moment. Because of attitude issues shown above, and my own personal observations, this is not a case where I feel I should disregard my opinion on number of crats. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Based on the discussion about Rudget's resysopping, I do not trust you to be making these decisions. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. I feel that this is a bit too soon... sorry. I also feel you have made a few too many bad decisions, although we all do at times. I will reconsider my position in a few months, perhaps. Spebi 05:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Per almost everyone above me. (I didn't take the the time to research Rudget, but everything else.) GRBerry 05:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Firm oppose Even as I have had relatively good interactions with Maxim in the context of our work on the ice hockey portal, I have, I regret to say, little confidence in his ability deliberatively to divine a consensus from an RfA or RfB discussion, and I, as others, have concerns about the abruptness with which Maxim sometimes handles those with whom he is in dispute or who query him with respect to his admin actions. Joe 05:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Weak Oppose Sorry Maxim, there's been some missteps. This is a bit too soon. GlassCobra 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - per above. miranda 05:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Per him not caring about the blocking policy and invoking IAR to unblock a disruptive user. — Save_Us † 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  19. Per my other opposes in this recent spate of RfB's. There are users who possess the maturity, trustworthiness and good judgment necessary for the position, but these are not they. (Reserving judgment on Wizardman for now.) Mike R (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  20. Can't see myself supporting someone who has less than a year of admin experience. Guettarda (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  21. Per above with regards to the Mikka block and its aftermath, Rudget's re-sysoping, and others. The communication aspect that I'd expect with regards to a 'crat is lacking. -MBK004 08:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  22. Oppose, I have lots of minor reasons that others have touched on - too many to be neutral or support. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Same as before: I truly think an administrator needs at least a year of experience to become a bureaucrat. A quick review shows he is a good admin (even though I don't agree with using the rollback tools to revert oneself), but it is not enough to me to oppose. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Abstaining here - good user, but too much drama very recently. Will (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. I'd support, but a few of the opposers mentioning bad communicative ability worries me (particularly DHMO's oppose): b'crats should be able to communicate fairly well, IMO. Perhaps at a future date, I will support. · AndonicO Hail! 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

.