Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia

 Support = 17;  Oppose = 1;  Neutral = 0 - 94% Result. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Russavia

Vote

Links for candidate: Russavia (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

I was approached by Trijnstel (talk · contribs) on IRC, who suggested a couple of weeks ago that I submit this request. She suggested that I would be a good candidate for such a role on Commons, and that Commons is needing active bureaucrats. I said I would consider it, and here I am.

I have been an admin on Commons since May 2010 and am an active community member, particularly by way of my obtaining of permissions and uploads, and also creating (in its still infant stages) an aviation WikiProject on Commons. These editorial contributions will always be my core reason for being on Commons, yet at the same time having only a single active crat on the project can also be problematic for the community, so I am throwing my hat in the ring to help out when required in such a role. russavia (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support I also think you would be a good Bureaucrat. Careful, calm, and very regularly available. --99of9 (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - I agree much with user 99of9 Romaine (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted contributor. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Definitely a good candidate for this position. odder (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support — putnik 16:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Absolutely, clearly a good candidate--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support, could use more crats and there is every indication that this user will be able to handle the few extra tools. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - A.Savin 18:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Multichill (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - Good work --Katarighe (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Finally! Thanks for volunteering. Trijnstel (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Aye - <PeterSymonds>Good ol' Russie.</PeterSymonds> — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 17:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I hadn't realized we had a shortage of bureaucrats, but you're certainly a good one to do it. --Quintucket (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Certainly we need a 'crat or two more I must stress I fully respect the work Russavia does as an admin here. However any admin action is easily and quickly reversed within the community. That is not the case with the most important 'crat button. The block log (or more precisely what the block log appears to show) concerns me enough to reluctantly oppose this. I've not seen evidence of questionable behaviour here however I'm not prepared to take a chance with this level of rights I'm afraid. Sincerely sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- GreyHood ^Talk 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support trusted and vauled contributor on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - Commons trusts and values this contributor on our project. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

•  Question — Can you describe in a statement your vision of the expected role of a Bureaucrat on Commons? Does it differ from how Bureaucrats are perceived, and their various responsibilities, on other projects including English Wikipedia? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Cirt, I don't really understand your question "on other projects including English Wikipedia" - could you please explain? Are crats seen differently there? --Saibo (Δ) 03:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure, that's why I was asking. :) -- Cirt (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • My "vision" of the role of a crat is all but summed up, in both letter and spirit, at Commons:Bureaucrats#What_is_a_bureaucrat.3F. I haven't looked at great depth at the crat role on English Wikipedia, nor any other project, but I would imagine that the roles are analogous to the role on Commons. Crats on Commons, as per the link I have given, are required to act in an uninvolved and objective manner, in line with Commons community consensus and Commons policy. This is obviously something that is expected on all projects. So I wouldn't imagine the crat role wouldn't differ all that much between projects. However, on English Wikipedia, I believe that crats are not able to close discussions in which they have provided an opinion. Of course, this is different on Commons, and is likely due to our smaller "community" and the lack of crats on this project. This is where the community-expected role and impartiality of a Commonscrat is of great importance. If there is anything in particular from another project that you have in mind with your question, and it relates to Commons, please point it out to me, and I'll provide my opinion on it. russavia (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much, Russavia, that's a good answer. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Question – what is your personal opinion about "neutral" votes? Do they count as "no support" only, or "no oppose" as well? See Commons_talk:Requests and votes#Comment on election analysis. Regards a×p_de^Hello! 18:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • An interesting question indeed. IMO, the scenario you have presented here overly relies on the "event" being a simple vote, instead of a discussion which is based upon consensus. It's a little too simplistic to rely purely on the percentages; however, this is likely due to the 75% mentioned at Commons:Administrators#Voting. At User_talk:EugeneZelenko#Result_of_Commons:Administrators.2FRequests.2FWvk, in addition to his saying that he counts neutrals as "not supports", Eugene also goes on to say "(n)eutral votes are not assumed pro or contra, but never ignored." It is this latter statement which is most important, as it indicates (to me) that requests are not treated simply as a vote, but rather an assessment of community consensus. It's for this reason, that I would forego the addition of a percentage tally on requests but rather rely on a rationale for all closures. The rationale would take into account the strength and veracity of reasoning for any stance. This would apply in all four scenarios which you mentioned, but evermoreso in the 2nd and 3rd scenarios. russavia (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Question – When you become a bureaucrat, what major tasks you want to do? --Katarighe (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • IF the community desires for me to become a bureaucrat, the tasks that I will engage in will include anything as outlined at Commons:Bureaucrats#Community_role. I don't intend to jump straight into the deep end of the swimming pool, but will rather gradually ease myself into tasks that a crat is expected to fulfil. russavia (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Question (someone is going to hate me for this but it is part of the job!) You have what I can only describe as one helluva block log on en wp - frankly I am not sure it bothers me but I think it is something that needs airing maybe - any comments? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I am a firm believer in an editors participation on Commons being a separate issue to their participation on another project, unless there is good reason for their off-Commons editing to be linked here, such as for cross-wiki vandalism. My record on Commons speaks for itself, and shouldn't be called into question for things that have may or may not have occurred on other projects. This is something that was afforded to me at my RfA, and it is something that I extend to other editors on this project. This is part and parcel of being mellow, with disputes from other projects not being imported to Commons. That is; what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Due to this, I am not going to comment on anything in particular from enwp on Commons, because it isn't relevant to us on Commons, and for me to do so would be opening the door for the importation onto Commons of disputes and dramuh from enwp. russavia (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • In general I would agree & I have no wish to attract drama here. However - you are standing for rights which expect you to evaluate the views of the community and yet, it appears, in another community they had to enforce theirs views on you as you seemed repeatedly not to accept or understand them? That would be a worrying trait in a 'crat for me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Herby, I can understand how you may perceive things to be, and I respect that, but there is much more than meets the eye than a simple block log. The back story is not pretty, and it belongs on WP only. I hope you will understand, and respect, that I won't discuss on Commons things have occurred on enwp in any great way, as I have successfully managed to separate my editing on enwp from my editing and community role on Commons, and I would like to keep it that way. Because I have been able to do this, I believe I have the trust of the Commons community, and I believe that is more important than a block log on enwp. As I know your home project is not enwp, you are of course free to email me if you want to know anything further, and in particular. russavia (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Have to agree with what Russavia has stated, we have always stated that issues on Wikipedia stay there unless the issue(s) is also occuring on Commons and in this case he has a clean record on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Question What is you opinion about that situation: Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 1#De-admined without warning? Should the user desysopped out of process (because of a technical mistake) be automatically re-sysopped? Trycatch (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • My apologies, forgot about this questions. Will get to it asap. russavia (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    • {{Nudge}} --99of9 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay, had a few days R&R. The de-admining is indeed a weird situation in that the process wasn't followed in terms of notification to the admin of the risk of de-adminship, but rather the posting of a message on discussion concerning the general topic was being used as this notification. The discussion on this particular admin, however, does not seem to be complete; there's a few comments but nothing more. In relation to matters of process, I would say that the editor should have had the tools reinstated, and then been notified by following process. The removal of the tools could then have been done if they did not meet the requirements to keep the tools. It likely could have ended up with the tools being removed, given that the editor hasn't been all that active (presuming there not to be any reasons behind this), but we could then say that process has been followed. Process is an important part of the project. russavia (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks for the questions, I will respond to these in the next 24-48 hours; I want to try and respond to all at the same time. Any other questions, dump them below and I'll get to those as well. Cheers, russavia (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)