Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/BRPever

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it.

BRPever

BRPever (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 11:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Result: Successful RFB, congratulation to status change--Eptalon (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Today I would like to nominate BRP for bureaucratship. As we know, BRP often nominates admins, so now it's time for his nomination :). I guess he doesn't need to be introduced to anyone either, his activity is known to everyone, and he is a very trusted admin. Having one more bureaucrat is definitely more comfort and faster work. BRP could close RFAs, including those started by him. Personally, I don't see any reason not to award him this flag :). Thank you for considering this request. Good luck! BZPN (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Co-nominator's statement: I am pleased to co-nominate BRPever for bureaucrat. In his 6+ years as an administrator, BRP has shown to be a friendly and calm administrator with a clear understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have the opportunity to interact with him all over Wikipedia, and sometimes disagree with him, and he has consistently shown a skill for summarising community consensus and moving the project forward, skills that are helpful as a bureaucrat. BRP meets all the criteria for being a bureaucrat as a very active administrator, and through his cross-wiki community involvement and administrator actions, has shown he can be trusted as a bureaucrat to follow policy and confirm the consensus of the community. Since our active bureaucrat numbers are few, having BRP as an additional bureaucrat on the project will help share the responsibility and provide an additional protection to the project. I hope you can join us in supporting BRP as a Simple English Wikipedia bureaucrat. Griff (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: Hi all! This nomination was a bit of an unexpected surprise for me. I just want to clarify that I will try to avoid closing requests that I started, or am actively part of, or have a COI with as much as possible. If other crats and community thinks having me as a bureaucrat will benefit the project, I am willing to accept this role. Thank you for your time.--BRP ^ever 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Extremely Strong support. Trusted editor, 200% knows what their doing, no reason to oppose.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support - I do think this wiki would benefit from more crats (heaven forbid there was a close call and a cratchat was required), and this user would do the job well. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Strong support as nominator. BZPN (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support – Lionel Cristiano (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Crat support Bureaucrat is probably the admin-level role with the least amount of work that needs doing (compared to CU/OS), and all work now centres around permission requests of some kind, be it RfP or bot/IA work. We don't get that many of those types of requests, so generally it is not too big of a deal if there are only a few people able to handle it, and probably better for security reasons, which is why RfBs come up so infrequently. But 1) two of our crats are currently almost inactive and I'm trying to take a step back for the next six months or so, that leaves two active crats left, meaning there will be a greater need for a crat this year, and 2) BRP has done a great amount of work in recent weeks with our archival system on permission and other requests, helping implement SpBot on this wiki. Although I think the CU request was quite recent, I see no other issues, so I feel it's a no-brainer I support this request, with one more crat needed to fast-track the request. --Ferien (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Support – Has plenty of experience here as an admin and former steward, and has shown themselves to be very competent overall. I believe they will be a great bureaucrat. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 20:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
7. Support Queen of Hearts (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
8. Support MathXplore (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
9. easy no-brainer Strong support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
10. Support Raayaan9911 10:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
11. Support absolutely! Ternera (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
12. Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
13. Support fr33kman 19:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
14. Support BigKrow (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
15. Support Trusted and experienced editor. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
16. Support Thoughtful admin that can speak their mind and still acknowledge when consensus goes in a different way without being petty or dismissive. Uncommon and needed here. Ravensfire (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
17. Support, wouldn't hurt to have another bureaucrat here. ShadowBallX (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
18. Support also per Ferien's words. Also, with more crats available, we'll be able to hear more crats' opinions on Requests for permissions. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
19. Strong support →TypeInfo (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
20. Support as 3 of the 5 bureaucrats are inactive and as Ferien is stepping back that pretty much leaves us with one bureaucrat - we need all the bureaucrats we can get and imho it's not fair to leave crat stuff all to one crat here, so for those reasons I support this RFB. –Davey2010^Talk 18:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
21. Support Dont have to say much Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
22. Support. Codename Noreste (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose I think that five bureaucrats might be enough in Simple English Wikipedia and we may not need more bureaucrats, I oppose this vote. thetree284 (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

1. While I do think 5 is a good number, many of them aren't active on regular basis. With Ferien going on a wikibreak, I thought having one more will be beneficial. Along with this, regular tasks like closing RFA on time, updating time for late nomination acceptance and so on could be more smooth. Also, discussion to clarify policy regarding Interface administrator has been ongoing for months, that could use more crat participation since they are the ones granting the right. I know these aren't frequently used tools, my only reason for running is to process and respond to these request on time without having to bother crats who are taking a break. Thanks, BRP ^ever 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, my latest RfA took several days to close. This isn't a problem, and isn't a smear on any of the crats excellent work, but rather at least some proof of the crat role needing to be a bit wider. We don't lose anything by having one or more new crats. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

   But I will I would say I oppose this vote right now. Thanks, thetree284 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

   Is there any logical reason to object to this request at all? With all due respect, the we have enough bureaucrats justification is absurd. You can never have too many administrators/bureaucrats, and the more of them, the better the work. BZPN (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

   @BZPN I'm going to be honest had we not had a drop in inactive crats here I honestly doubt I would be supporting this as crat stuff here is generally rare, I've opposed previous RFBs because of thetree's exact reason. <personal attack removed> we only have 2 active crats here with one taking a step back in the coming months which just leaves one crat left ..... so it's a no-brainer to support!.... –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

1.  Neutral: Okay, I changed my vote from oppose to neutral because I’m not sure I would let BRPever become a bureaucrat or not. Thanks, thetree284 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

   Thanks for your reply, however, a neutral vote doesn't exactly help the vote 2601:402:4400:3A90:60EC:581D:6B8D:BB0E (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

   It's fine IP, I can just vote neutral if I want to. thetree284 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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.