Wikiquote:Requests for bureaucratship/RyanCross

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Successful application.

RyanCross (talk · contributions)

I am nominating RyanCross as a candidate for Bureaucrat. He has been a solid positive contributor here since August 2008, and since his unanimous Request for adminship has done great work with the admin tools. He is a bureaucrat on the Simple English Wikiquote ([1]), and I am confident he will be quite helpful in this capacity on this project as well. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's statement: Hello, I am RyanCross (talk · contributions), an English Wikiquote administrator as most of you already know, and I am requesting that I may become a bureaucrat. I have been an active member of English Wikiquote for over nine months now, having made over 1500 contributions (including deleted edits) according to this tool, and have been serving as an administrator for nearly half-a-year since having my successful requests for adminship when Kalki (talk · contributions) nominated (and promoted) me.

Since joining this wiki, I have done much work in the mainspace, including copyedits to many articles and content work to a handful of them. Articles I've created or expanded are listed at User:RyanCross/Contributions. I am proud of all the article work I have done for this project, but if I had to choose just one article I am most proud of, that would be Bud Selig of course. As an administrator, I have done over 300 administrative actions here according to this tool. I have closed numerous WQ:VFDs, took care of vandalism, CAT:PROD, and WQ:SDs, participated in most discussions, and much more for our project as an editor and administrator.

As a bureaucrat, I plan to close WQ:RFAs. I am fairly knowledgeable when it comes to deciding consensus, which is why I close VFDs regularly, so I will be active in this area when the time comes for an RfA to be closed. I will be able to handle WQ:CHU, WQ:CHU/U, and WQ:BOT requests also, but my main area would be RfA, as I admit I don't have as much experience in the renaming process or granting bot flags (but I am sure I will learn more about that. I am sure all bureaucrats started this way). I am also around the wiki for most of the day now, so I can handle and complete requests needing bureaucrat attention at almost any given time, which I consider a plus. And just for extra disclosure, I am also an administrator and bureaucrat on the Simple English Wikiquote (verify) (as Cirt (talk · contributions) notes above), so I do have some experience as a bureaucrat already.

As the saying goes, "The more administrators there are the better," but what about "The more bureaucrats there are the better," eh? Therefore, I am willing to do extra work as a bureaucrat for the English Wikiquote. Our community could always use extra bureaucrats also, not just administrators. This is why I request to become a bureaucrat.

Acceptance: Yes, yes, I accept. Thank you. — RyanCross (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduled to end 08:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions/comments

Question: You have indeed been a good administrator here. Because I wonder whether your ideas on Bureaucracy_{gratuitous link} may be different from mine, I would appreciate learning your thoughts on:

When and to what extent is it appropriate to introduce an opinion on the merits of a question while closing a vote? (e.g.)
A. When reviewing and closing RfAs, bureaucrats need to decide the consensus of the discussion. They then make the candidate for adminship an administrator or not (same applies for RfBs). Though, in order to decide consensus, they must remain neutral about the candidate at all times, and should only base their decision off the community's overall decision. If an issue comes up in an RfA, and it becomes a controversial one, bureaucrats should really pay attention to the consensus of the whole RfA, and not just that one issue. Because of this, bureaucrats need to have good judgement in order to properly decide consensus of an RfA. It may sound difficult to some, and maybe even simple for others, but I believe I am able to take on this duty as a bureaucrat because of the experience I have gained here on English Wikiquote (such as closing WQ:VFDs), remaining neutral and judgmental when closing RfAs.
When is it appropriate to delete a page that might in other circumstances be considered part of an official record? (e.g.)
A. Pages that contain important information, controversy, discussion of any sort, or anything similar should never be deleted. Even blanked discussion pages (yes, I have seen these before) still contains the history of the page in the history tab, therefore meaning it still should not be deleted. These pages should not be deleted because it contains history and may be used for future reference. If any doubts come up about a certain page being deleted or not, this should go taken for discussion at WQ:VFD.

No need to go into particulars, as the examples are from a different project with different circumstances. I would just like to understand your general philosophy. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support, as nom. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RyanCross is a valuable contributor to the site and I am sure will only help more as a Bureaucrat. ~ UDScott 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ryan Cross has been a good and trustworthy Administrator. His knowledge will be useful as a Bureaucrat. - InvisibleSun 00:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I tend to be far more cautious in supporting candidates for bureaucrat rather than admin roles, but I know of no reason to object to RyanCross's candidacy, and I myself have not been as attentive to many bureaucratic functions as I probably should be. In some previous candidacies there was no obvious need for more, but that situation has changed with the increase in renaming requests brought on with the change to Single-User Login on the projects. ~ Kalki 18:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In my experience RyanCross has been consistently responsible and thoughtful. I have no reservations entrusting him with account maintenance tools. ~ Ningauble 15:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I am new here and am not sure this vote will count, but I have always found RyanCross to be a bright and helpful user on multiple projects as an admin and crat. I would have no reservations on supporting him as a bureaucrat on WIkiquote. Shappy 23:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've worked with RyanCross on other projects, and he seems to be a sensible and intelligent user. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RyanCross's record shows he will be an asset to the project as a bureaucrat. --Antiquary 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RyanCross is now a bureaucrat here at Wikiquote. ~ Kalki 23:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.