I'd like to apply to be a bureaucrat. I've been a sysop since late last year, and I think in the time I've been here, I've established myself as trustworthy. After the position of bureaucrat was created, I was the one who wrote the polls that defined what their role is, so I'm very familiar with what a bureaucrat is supposed to do. I'm applying here because Angela has said there aren't enough bureaucrats, which (given that Angela or Kingturtle do most of the promoting) I'm inclined to agree with.
→Raul654 00:26, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
Raul's level-headed arbitration of the frequently-heated discussions on FAC has always been impressive. -
DropDeadGorgias(talk) 15:11, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
OPPOSE! Mark needs to knuckle under and get on with his Ph.D Bah, does the world really need another Ph.D? Support. --
Finlay McWalter |
Talk 20:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just noticed this. I fully support.
Johnleemk |
Talk 12:12, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Raul's dedication deserves recognition, and I expect he'll serve well. However, I think this discussion is incomplete without one caveat: Raul too often assumes ill intent. Please avoid this pitfall as a bureaucrat.
Cribcage 03:27, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A true pillar of Wikipedia. -
Mark 02:34, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sam [
Spade] 18:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) dubious of his neutrality. Feeling much happier due to recent clarifications regarding
Wikipedia:Featured articles. I support.
What does that mean?
RickK 05:25, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
I told him one of his complaints on the FAC was frivilous and said essentially that. This is his payback.
→Raul654 05:36, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
oppose because of his behaviour in regard to
zionism and related pages - manipulative, dishonest and unfair person.
Zw 09:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Comments
To continue an interesting debate on Raul654's talk page, which I don't want to break into directly; I think that we should have clear ideas about what judgements a Bureaucrat should do (a lot, in my opinion), and then ask the current bureaucrats to try to follow them, or resign. If Angela, or any other bureaucrat thinks that this was not what he/she wanted to do, they can resign as bureaucrats, without anyone thinking less of them.
✏ Sverdrup 02:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The current problem is that bureaucrats aren't even making the decision to sysop someone when they have 100% support, so trying to make them make judgements about less clear cut cases isn't likely to work. The reason I said we need more bureaucrats is that although we have 13 of them, since the start of May, only two of them have been active, meaning that in some cases nominations have been left an extra three days without any action being taken.
Angela. 02:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to apply to be a bureaucrat. I've been a sysop since late last year, and I think in the time I've been here, I've established myself as trustworthy. After the position of bureaucrat was created, I was the one who wrote the polls that defined what their role is, so I'm very familiar with what a bureaucrat is supposed to do. I'm applying here because Angela has said there aren't enough bureaucrats, which (given that Angela or Kingturtle do most of the promoting) I'm inclined to agree with.
→Raul654 00:26, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
Raul's level-headed arbitration of the frequently-heated discussions on FAC has always been impressive. -
DropDeadGorgias(talk) 15:11, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
OPPOSE! Mark needs to knuckle under and get on with his Ph.D Bah, does the world really need another Ph.D? Support. --
Finlay McWalter |
Talk 20:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just noticed this. I fully support.
Johnleemk |
Talk 12:12, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Raul's dedication deserves recognition, and I expect he'll serve well. However, I think this discussion is incomplete without one caveat: Raul too often assumes ill intent. Please avoid this pitfall as a bureaucrat.
Cribcage 03:27, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A true pillar of Wikipedia. -
Mark 02:34, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sam [
Spade] 18:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) dubious of his neutrality. Feeling much happier due to recent clarifications regarding
Wikipedia:Featured articles. I support.
What does that mean?
RickK 05:25, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
I told him one of his complaints on the FAC was frivilous and said essentially that. This is his payback.
→Raul654 05:36, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
oppose because of his behaviour in regard to
zionism and related pages - manipulative, dishonest and unfair person.
Zw 09:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Comments
To continue an interesting debate on Raul654's talk page, which I don't want to break into directly; I think that we should have clear ideas about what judgements a Bureaucrat should do (a lot, in my opinion), and then ask the current bureaucrats to try to follow them, or resign. If Angela, or any other bureaucrat thinks that this was not what he/she wanted to do, they can resign as bureaucrats, without anyone thinking less of them.
✏ Sverdrup 02:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The current problem is that bureaucrats aren't even making the decision to sysop someone when they have 100% support, so trying to make them make judgements about less clear cut cases isn't likely to work. The reason I said we need more bureaucrats is that although we have 13 of them, since the start of May, only two of them have been active, meaning that in some cases nominations have been left an extra three days without any action being taken.
Angela. 02:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)