The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or request for checkusership. Please do not modify it.

Chenzw[change source]

Chenzw (talk · contribs)

End date: February 5 3:19 (UTC)

Nomination from Razorflame: Hi all. I would like to present Chenzw (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) to the community for the bureaucrat flag. Chenzw has been an administrator on this site for the past 8-9 months and in that time, he has blocked more than 200 users, deleted more than 1,200 pages, protected nearly 80 pages, and has been present in nearly all of the community discussions since he became an administrator. Chenzw also has the kind of temperment that people like to see in candidates for bureaucrat. I believe that Chenzw will make a fine bureaucrat and will definitely be able to tell when there is community consensus or not on any issue that is brought up. I also believe that he will be able to use the bureaucrat tools to be able to better help out our community by being a bureaucrat in a time zone that isn't currently covered by any other bureaucrat. He has my complete trust and I believe that he will definitely be a great bureaucrat! Cheers, Razorflame 14:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Non from Shapiros10: There's no denying it. Simple has a need for another bureaucrat, and I think Chenzw would be perfect for the job. He has been on Simple for almost two years, and has been an admin for over nine months. Chenzw is a good admin, with knowledge of the admin tools and actively uses them. He is a trusted member of our community, and I think that his good judgment and knowledge of the tools make him a positive for the project as a bureaucrat. Shapiros10 15:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept the nomination with honour. Chenzw  Talk  15:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Either way[change source]

Since, generally, the biggest responsibility of a bureaucrat is to judge and determine consensus, especially at RFAs, could you point us to some recent examples of situations where you've had to determine consensus, such as a request for deletion closing or other types of closings? Thanks, Either way (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gwib (see below) has listed them already. --Chenzw  Talk  08:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gwib mentioned some exist but no examples. Could you provide examples? Thanks, Either way (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few: 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 --Chenzw  Talk  10:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Soup Dish[change source]

1. How will you differentiate between consensus building and !vote counting?

A. Vote counting is basically determining the result of something just by how many supports or opposes there are. Consensus (what building?) is determined by what the general opinion of the people participating in the discussion is.
You can't look at only percentage as that is vote counting. For the 10 support and 10 oppose votes, it depends on what you mean by "unconvincing". If you mean the opposes follow the style of "I oppose because he voted for deletion of my article", (that is, if the article really met the criteria for deletion) then obviously the decision is to promote. If you mean the opposes are unconvincing because of lack of evidence, it is the 'crat's job to look for them (the evidence) or ask for clarification. --Chenzw  Talk  10:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. If the community can trust an editor to become an admin, under what circumstances should they not trust them to also be a 'crat?

A. In order to be promoted as a bureaucrat, one must fulfil criteria that are more strict then the criteria for adminship as bureaucrats can make changes that only stewards can undo. An admin cannot be trusted as a 'crat if he/she: is too new (not enough experience) or has been involved in some recent drama. Otherwise the rest is up to the community to determine the abilities of the candidate.

3. Have you ever been blocked or banned from any other Wikimedia Foundation projects?

A. Yes, there were some instances when I was auto-blocked on EN due to the proxying done by my ISP.

4. Do you believe decisions should ever been made on IRC?

A. Decisions should not be made on IRC because the whole discussion will not be logged officially. Even if logging is done, the whole process is simply not transparent enough (tampering of logs). IRC channels are meant for coordination between editors.

Thanks Soup Dish (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions answered. You might want to clarify on what you really want to ask in the first question. --Chenzw  
Clarification the first question is a key one, as an important part of 'crat work is to decide whether RFAs should be closed as promotions or otherwise. What percentage would you look for from the !votes to promote? Could there be consensus to promote if there were 10 convincing support !votes and 10 unconvincing !oppose votes? Soup Dish (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk  08:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally like to get a clarification on Q3, have you ever been blocked directly?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 08:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never before. --Chenzw  Talk  08:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[change source]

  1. Support as nominator. Razorflame 14:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Why not? Synergy 15:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. Juliancolton (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support As co-nom. Shapiros10 15:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Active, good judgement. We need another crat, so Chenzw's a good choice. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No problems here. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) (review) 15:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Most certainly. --Creol(talk) 15:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Changing his mind on whether another crat is needed or not based on the communities opinion that we definately need one is exactly the kind of level headed thinking we need a crat to have. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support Per Synergy and PeterSymonds. TurboGolf 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - AGF I guess. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as per noms, and also AGF. From experiences I have no reason to not support! BG7even 18:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - has my trust and support, --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak support - After further thoughts, I don't think my reason was enough to oppose. The good out-weighs the bad. I'm pretty sure he will do a good job. Kennedy (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support – I have known Chenzw for a long time and fully trust this user for 'crat. TheAE talk 18:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. --Archer7 - talk 19:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support FSM Noodly? 12:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. +1. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 11:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 08:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support — Sure, has done a lot as an administrator for Simple English Wikipedia. — RyanCross (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

  1. Procedural oppose as I believe the RFB system used on this Wikipedia is broken Soup Dish (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to further this before questions are asked: The question is one of trust. I either trust somebody not to make a mess of Wikipedia or I don't. If I trust them to become an admin, I trust them to become a 'crat. On a project of this size, I honestly think 'cratship has to be bundled with adminship to remove the element of trophy hunting, if nothing else. I'd like to hear Majorly's views on this. Soup Dish (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I agree, but it makes no sense to promote someone who thinks no more are needed when others apply, but when they're requesting, it's a totally different story. Majorly talk 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this straight: you're opposing in spite of your RFB proposal being shot down in flames? Shapiros10 15:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's rubbish. Chenzw opposed 3 RfBs because he believed we need no more. And here he is conducting his own. Perfectly logical reason for an oppose, so the tone can be dropped IMO. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing others because he believed no more were needed then running himself seems awfully like "I want the trophy, I want the trophy"! It's incredibly bad form. Furthermore, the nomination statements are truly woeful. Sure, it shows me what the candidate has done as an admin, but doesn't show his 'crat suitability. And I'm told there is a difference in the levels of trust involved...! Soup Dish (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinions can change, the push suddenly to have a new crat would be a perfectly reasonable reason to change your mind. -Djsasso (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment - noticed on his userpage "Because of school, Chenzw will not be very active on weekdays, but should be back editing voraciously on weekends (except while doing homework)". So, of all the possible admins, one who admits he is only available for the position part-time? Odd choice Soup Dish (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering activity is something I was opposed over, it makes little sense to promote someone who even admits to being semi-active. How will promoting a semi-active person help our lack of bcrats? Majorly talk 16:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Playing devils advocate here, but some is better than none could come into play? And the fact he fits a time zone gap we have when it comes to crats. -Djsasso (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This timezone thing is nonsense. Example, I was up from 8:15am until 5am over Tuesday till today. Just because someone is in a particular timezone does not make them automatically better choice. I could quite easily cover every timezone because I have an erratic schedule. But alas, I was not "active" enough and did not have "enough" mainspace edits. Majorly talk 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't comparing him to you I perhaps should have been more clear. I also don't think it automatically makes him a better candidate. There are perhaps other reasons he would be preferable to you for some people and being in a time zone that could be a good one could only be a bonus. While I think it could be decent to have a third one now, I still don't see a pressing need to immediately get one. So I am less likely to overlook issues with various candidates just because people think we need one. Waiting a couple hours to close an Rfa won't kill anyone etc. -Djsasso (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Claimed earlier this month that no more bureaucrats are needed. Not only is that a false statement, it shows poor judgement to oppose 3 RFBs over it, then accept one yourself. Also per Soup Dish. There are better people for the job than this. Majorly talk 15:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he turned down my request to nominate him last month as well. But given the push in the community to pick a new 'crat anyway, apparently he is following that concensus with the acceptance this time around. --Creol(talk) 15:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - At the risk of making myself unpopular, he's not active enough in the mainspace or in general for me. Although he does edit voraciously, and helps keep Wikipedia running smooth, out of his last 500 edits to articles, 350 have been reverts. Just under 40% edits overall are to articles, which is also a tad low for my want. He also seems to edit sporadically (39 edits in December - 12 of which were reverts), and forgets about break tags left on his userpage. Finally, he found consensus on 4 occasions during the last 5 months in the WP:RFD field and some minor drama at ENWP (w:User_talk:Chenzw#Southern_Expressway_edits), but that's not particularly important. Basically, I really don't think people should be passing round the smelling salts in shock if someone is not promoted within 5 hours. If someone doesn't get the flag directly after consensus, or a user requesting botship need to wait a day, so what? We're not inefficient, and it'll get done. I'll wait for the cries of "unclean!" to begin. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weakly oppose - To be honest I was leaning towards support until soup Dish posted that quote from Chenzw's user page about his schooling. Therefore I must oppose on the inactivity grounds, our new 'Crat needs to be active nearly everyday, but good luck to Chenzw with schooling, I hope you do well.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose - No personal feelings, but a new Crat needs to be active and I'm not sure how active you'll be. The opposing RfB's and then running your own isn't quite good either. Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong oppose - Sorry but you don't have enough experience as an admin to be a crat and as per above, you are hardly ever active and per Majorly and I also know better people who can do this job..--Cometstyles 22:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose [1] - I'm a bit surprised at opposing other people's RfBs based on the fact that another one isn't needed, then running himself. Kennedy (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that we are down to 1 crat, the landscape has changed somewhat. -Djsasso (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It hadn't when he accepted this though. Majorly talk 15:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We actually have 2, but Vector doesn't pop in too often. Shapiros10 21:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't mean he couldn't have changed his mind via the clear community consensus on simple talk that we needed one. Holding him to an old opinion would be the equivalent
    Huge Gigantic massive enormous huge ginormous oppose User shows an extreme level of bad faith towards me. TurboGolf 07:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a big accusation. Can you say how? And remember, commenting in your ban discussion does not show assuming bad faith. These kinds of whiny opposes are really immature, and one of the reasons why there is a proposal of banning you from the Wikipedia namespace. Shapiros10 14:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

Ok, its transcluded, you can vote now. Synergy 15:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 15:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship is about trust - Bureaucrat even more so; so for all those who have not yet decided how to vote, please ask yourself: Do you think Chenzw is capable of handling the extra burnen placed on a bureaucrat? --Eptalon (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted

--vector ^_^ (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Category