Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Eptalon

< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it.


Eptalon (Bureaucrat)

change
Eptalon (talk · contribs)

Ended: Saturday, August 2, 2008 6:26 UTC

Result: Passed (28 support, 0 oppose)

Hello there, I just thought I could run for Bureaucrat, as two of our currently four bureaucrats are not very active at the moment. With Unified Login, there will also be some user renaming requests. So I want to sacrifice myself for the community, so that our other very active bureaucrat has less work on his hands. (Yes, I have read the Criteria, I know the rules, I have also done some editing here, last week I passed 20.000 of them). I have been an admin since November 16, 2006 (original request here). I am also one of the CheckUsers here. Thank you for your vote, whatever way. --Eptalon (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: self-nomination

Support

change
  1. Support for sure. Majorly talk 18:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. While we technically have 4 B'crats, one is inactive, one is less active than the inactive one, and one is not very active.. The other one is just a bit odd what with the pointy sticks and all. While much of the SUL activity is likely dealt with, there is still enough work to do at times. Best candidate for the job. -- Creol(talk) 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I've been here two days, but I know how these things go. I've reviewed a number of his edits and I don't see any issues. Crat inactivity is a sign that more is needed. On a side note, if a current crat feels he is suitable, this compels me to support. Synergy 18:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support and apologize not to have voted first and then after starting my comment below. ONaNcle (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I'll make mine easier than Creol's. We need more crats. SwirlBoy39 18:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Eptalon's been a great admin, he'll make a great crat as well.--TBC 18:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Has been a great admin for years, and always seems on-the-job. Is very dedicated to the project from his article work. Has also done some check users here and there. I see absolutely no reason to oppose. Best candidate for the job on Simple English Wikipedia. :) -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I didn't know you weren't one. Support for sure. -- American Eagle (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. For what my opinion is worth (I'm not very active here or anywhere at the moment), I'll support Eptalon. --Kyoko 22:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- Total Spastic 22:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Do I need to say any more? Chenzw  Talk  00:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support of course. --Werdan7T @ 01:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as per the Duh clause. I agree that with the invention of the SUL, we are going to be needing quite a few more 'crats, and since I have offered to nominate Eptalon for bureaucrat in the past, and you are now running for it, I see no reason why I should not support at this time. This user is definitely very active and helpful throughout the Wikipedia, and definitely knows what is going on here on the Simple English Wikipedia, so this is a no brainer. Good luck with your nomination! Cheers, Razorflame 02:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Do I really have to say anything, this user is more than qualified to be a B'crat Mifter (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 'crat really isn't that hard a job to perform. I trust you. By the way, there's all this talk of only 2 active 'crats... yet Archer7 and Vector seem (after looking at their contribs) equally active. Someone clarify? —Giggy 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No hestiations. Eptalon will be an excellent bureaucrat. Cassandra 04:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Definitely a trustworthy user. I had a look at the active/inactive B'crats too, can someone answer Giggy's question? - tholly --Turnip-- 16:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See here for the explanation. (No reason to clutter this request with a discussion that doesn't directly impact it.) -- Creol(talk) 16:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - tholly --Turnip-- 16:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Supoort --M7 (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support! Bstone (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I Support. ThePageChanger! 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, back from the dead! lol:) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 06:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose witch bureaucrats are not active? :P I'm active too :-) Good candidate. for me we could close here. --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now? Well, it's pretty obvious that this is going to pass, but I think we should close this on schedule. Let's give more people a chance to !vote. :) -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason to close this early; besides it will also tell us how many active named editors we have - in theory. --Eptalon (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Archer7 - talk 08:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support- More 'crats= better.Perfect Proposal (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support -  EchoBravo  contribs  18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - this is the active editors list, right?! Can't see a real need for a new 'crat but there'll seldom be a better and more trustworthy candidate for the position, so, why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - lolwut? ..--Cometstyles 22:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Kennedy (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strongly support per above.--  † ChristianMan16  06:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It has already ended :P Chenzw  Talk  07:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

change

Comments

change

Let me suggest you say less implicitly you'll resign from your CU function once a bureaucrat. ONaNcle (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Majorly talk 18:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With that logic, only M7 would be left as CheckUser. Do you really think that'd be a good idea? - Who answered the last few RFCUs? ;) --Eptalon (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason he can not do both. -- Creol(talk) 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most sorry then... forget about my idea... I was only hoping two other people could apply as CU is Eptalon becomes a bureaucrat. ONaNcle (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we have two candidates that could get 25 votes, at the moment. --Eptalon (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Tygrrr were more active and willing to get CU, and maybe EchoBravo, those two could easily gain the 25 support votes needed. Cheers, Razorflame 02:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote of confidence Razor, but I've barely been active since the flood last month. Hopefully will start to do more other than check my email and check my watchlist. -  EchoBravo  contribs  18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(just as a reminder: Anyone can apply or be proposed for CU, they just need to meet the CU requirements (most notably:Proof of Identity/age mailed to foundation, and of a certain age). Since we are a small community, we want our CUs to be admin. But other than that, if you think there are people who want to become CUs and can get at least 18 support votes of a total of 25 (legal) votes, then go ahead.--Eptalon (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask a noob question here. If most of the crats are inactive, and the others have voted, then who closes this request and makes him a crat? Synergy 17:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess at..... User:Creol. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no idea ;)- but I think that if worst came to worst a steward could be asked...--Eptalon (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I just wanted to bring this up, with respect to WP:COI (oddly enough this doesn't exist yet but I am looking to create it very, very soon). Synergy 17:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure any of the crats could close this one, as it's all support. - tholly --Turnip-- 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is painfully clear; it doesn't matter who closes it. On Commons (a bigger place than this) we close RfAs that we've voted in often if there's no opposition. (In fact, the last RfB was closed successful by someone who supported, despite there being some opposition.) —Giggy 23:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Bureaucrats are members of the community as well. They can vote too. The fact they press the button at the end is meaningless - they're just doing their job. We trust them to do it right, regardless of how they voted. Majorly talk 00:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this isn't commons Giggy. And my opinion of crats throughout the WMF projects can still hold true here. Synergy 05:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with say only people that didnt vote can close is that even without voting, that person still has an opinion. Whether the opinion is stated (voted) or not (didn't vote) would not matter if the person is going to use that opinion as part of how they close the vote. If they were going to close with a bias, not voting would be more dangerous as atleast their bias would be known if they voted. The best we can hope for is that each person in possition can make the call with the minimum amount of bias possible (everyone has some bias, the good ones do the correct thing despite it). I feel all our crats (and potential new crat) can do so. -- Creol(talk) 05:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely Vector will do it (he is sneaky fast at popping in and closing passing RfAs). As long as the request is not so close as it is a virtual coin flip for a winner, there is no reason any 'crat cannot be trusted to make the call even if the call is against how they feel. The fact that it is for 'crat is really no different than one of us doing it for RfAs and there have been no issues there since Nov 2006 (Netoholic vs Tdxiang) which was just one problem in a host of many - Netoholic had issues with following consensus quite often. -- Creol(talk) 05:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand with both of your comments above. I've pointed this all out for no reason in particular to this RfB other than transparency. We can discuss it further when the time comes. Synergy 05:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closed

--vector ^_^ (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed three minutes after voting deadline - see I told you he was sneaky fast at this. -- Creol(talk) 07:35, 2 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Eptalon&oldid=8893342"