Wikiquote:Requests for bureaucratship/RyanCross

This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments to another page, but not here.

Closed as "successful". RyanCross is now a bureaucrat. Congratulations! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RyanCross (talk • changes • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

End date: 22:27, 1 February 2009

This Wikiquote is pretty small, and there's not problem with having many, if not all admins, have the extra 'crat buttons. It's not great having one or two users responsible for all user rights changes, renames, and bot flagging. Ryan has been an admin here for a fair while, and I believe that he can be trusted with some additional responsibilities, and will make good use of the extra buttons. --Maxim | talk 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Co-nom by Razorflame: RyanCross would be a fine bureaucrat on this Wikiquote. He will do good for the community if he were to get the bit and he has already done some fine work for this Wikiquote. I believe that being a bureaucrat will allow him to help the community more than he already does. Cheers, Razorflame 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept the nomination. Thank you. — RyanCross (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[change] Support

1. Support as nom. Maxim | talk 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nom. Razorflame 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support I trust him. Shapiros10 ^(talk) 22:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support as it is that big of a deal, and I trust Ryan. TheAE talk 00:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
5. I strongly disagree with the idea of having only one bureaucrat. With the additions of American Eagle and RyanCross, I think we'll be well-covered in the bureaucrat department. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support No problems here. I do give a nod to the oppose in some way (not that crats are not needed, but too many crats can have an inadvertently negative effect when all three try and do the same thing at once, for example! :p). However, it's not something I'm going to oppose over, and I trust Ryan to do a good job. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Definately support. Always a level head and posses all the qualities needed. -Djsasso 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Why not. Synergy 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[change] Oppose

1. Crats are not needed now. CT is a fine crat and we don't need another atm. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 22:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

   What's the harm in having another bureaucrat? Having one bureaucrat to handle everything isn't that good. Requests that need bureaucrat attention would be handle faster with more bureaucrats. I can only think of positive things with more bureaucrats. On English Wikiquote, where I'm an administrator at, there's a saying that goes, "The more administrators there are the better." I also believe, "The more bureaucrats there are the better." An important question to think about is this: will adding another bureaucrat harm the project or be a positive move to one? Besides, if you think bureaucrats are not needed now, why did you support Wikiquote:Requests for bureaucratship/American Eagle? And why did not you oppose Wikiquote:Requests for bureaucratship/American Eagle 2 (yet)? — RyanCross (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[change] Comments

• Would it be alright is Coppertwig closed this one right now (consensus is clear), have RyanCross close mine, and move on as a project? The sooner mine is over, the better for everyone. TheAE talk 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Not up to me, of course, and it's Coppertwig's call, but I see no pressing need to close it early. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • No rush, American Eagle. Patience is key. — RyanCross (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments in another part.