For a few reasons, I'm changing the ending date to November 3, one week after what it was. People can continue discussing. ☺Coppertwig 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scheduled to end: 01:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 01:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello all, I would like to nominate myself (American Eagle (talk • changes)) for Bureaucratship. Recently, I have had to ask Coppertwig to do a bureaucrat actions, and he is only semi-active. And my changes now will not appear in New Changes, because I still have a bot flag.
I realize that I was a bit hasty in my requests here and here, but I will use more caution from now on. I also think it's good to have more than one person who has a tool (sysop, b'crat, CU, etc.), so we don't have a leader or controller. I do fully trust Coppertwig, though. I will not ever, ever abuse the tools and I only want best for the future of Simple English Wikiquote! Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. Thank you very much. -- American Eagle (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support for being a good editor. StaticFalcon 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support 100% YES! Great admin/contributor. A great choice for the much needed tools. SwirlBoy39 02:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you say what I've done? I really want to know. Thanks -- American Eagle (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having a glance over their sysop actions and general edits, I don't see why not. Their request and rationale for the tools are reasonable, and I find the oppose somewhat unconvincing, or at least explained to my satisfaction by the nominee. סּTalk 04:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below for your answer. Majorly 00:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Your defense of SF/SH is a tad troubling, but I trust your judgement. Shapiros10 18:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I should make a final statement on this. I never defended his actions, I just didn't believe they warranted an indef block. I believed he shouldn't have threatened suicide, and been disruptive, so I supported (along with several other users) a week-long block. I thought Matilda's mentorship would be a better course to take in the long run. It would have been, but SF/SH blew it and pushed the community's trust by sending horrid emails to several users. This was too far, and I believe he should receive a long block (several months at least, idk).
But that does not mean I don't want him here. He is doing exactly what I knew he could on Simple English Wikipedia - work as a good and constructive user. He is doing just that, very good editing and working hard for the benefit of Simple English Wikiquote. But I thank you for your trust, Sebb, I would never abuse the flag. God bless, -- American Eagle (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome. Please notice my username ;) Shapiros10 21:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The most active user on this project; has shown a clue and good judgement in their edits on Wikiquote, and should do fine with the extra buttons. In response to the incident regarding Simple English Wikipedia, American Eagle's explanation is detailed and sufficient, and for doubters, I'm inclined to believe it was very much an isolated incident. As for the oppose about a "need", I can't back that up with anything but trust. Flags are given when needed, yes, but also with trust and activity. As the project grows, so will the number of admin requests. With Coppertwig and American Eagle editing at different times of the day, another 'crat will be useful, not just locally, but to fulfil global requests regarding broken SULs, username issues, etc. I believe this promotion will be a net positive move for the Wikiquote project. PeterSymonds 02:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PeterSymonds. While I have issues with him on Wikipedia, that shouldn't affect his performance here. He is very active and is often asking Coppertwig to do bcrat stuff (and CT is semi-active). Majorly 21:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - has shown poor judgement in his defence of long term problematic editor StaticFalcon, who is banned from English and Simple English Wikipedia. He's now told him that he'll "never" let him get blocked here. I wouldn't want to imagine him as a bureaucrat if he's as biased as he is when making important, irreversible decisions. Majorly 01:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Striking since I don't like drive-by opposers, and leaving my oppose here would be highly hypocritical of me. Majorly 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not. I won't ever block him here just because he is blocked on Wikipedia. I want him to be able to contribute here. That is what I mean. -- American Eagle (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if StaticFalcon becomes disruptive here, what would you do? – RyanCross (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give him a block. You guys are missing my point. I want Wikiquote to do well, and I want Static to get better. But yes, if he became a vandal/disruptive here he should be blocked. -- American Eagle (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't particularly think one should become a 'crat so soon after becoming an admin, so soon after acting hastily on a block on SEWP (including edit warring, wheel warring and removing a block) and finally, so soon after having all of the above comments yet to be fixed. --Gwib -(talk)- 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unrequired flag; I'm surprised we even need one 'crat. Microchip08 14:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is the only reason you are giving, nothing about me? -- American Eagle (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; this is not very fair on the candidate. American Eagle is the most active editor on this project, and giving the user as an editor a fair chance is needed. You could say the same about administrators on simplewikibooks, or oversighters on enwiki, but flags are granted on display of trust and activity. PeterSymonds 23:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, I disagree with that statement -- flags are there to be used. There aren't enough RfA's to warrant a second bureaucrat. Microchip08 19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are to be used. And Coppertwig has used them (and hasn't misused them at all), and will be using them more in the future. But what if he becomes inactive? Do we have to wait for a week (or more) before a name change or RfA close? I don't think this should be the case.
You also base your oppose on us staying small forever! I hope and pray that we will continue to get bigger, and we are doing so! Okay, look at it this way, English Wikipedia has more than 1,500 administrators, and has at least 5 passing RfAs at any given moment. Do they really need this many? Probably not. But they are used and are a benifit to the Wikikpedia community. This is all I want to do. -- American Eagle (talk • bureaucratship) 20:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If q: gets big enough to warrant it, then sure, I'll support then. ENWP has lots of administrators, but most of them are inactive, and there should always be more admins than 'crats. How many 'crats are there on ENWP, and how many RfA's are there per month? Turn that into a ratio and apply it here. One 'crat is enough. There's always stewards, and there's always another RfB in the future. Microchip08 20:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Majorly and PeterSymonds. While definately a great contributer. There are just a few things that are really troubling about this editor. Definately not saying never, just not now. -Djsasso 19:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he did but he brought up some comments below that I feel a reasons to think that this is a case of not yet. I will have no problem with you becoming one in the future, I just don't think you have enough experience at the admin level yet to be working at the crat level. And while I have no problem with self noming for admin. I am not sure you should self nom for crat. Things crats can do are alot harder to fix if there is a mess up. -Djsasso 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, adminship is not a "level" nor is it a big deal (the same for the "crat level"). It's just an extra button given for extra trust. To "And while I have no problem with self noming for admin. I am not sure you should self nom for crat." Well, the last successful RfB at English Wikipedia (by Bibliomaniac15) was self-nommed and passed, so I don't think I agree with that.
To "things crats can do are alot harder to fix if there is a mess up," I'm sure there are. I have read over the b'crat policies and I believe understand them, but I don't promise to never make a mistake, as I did my first day as admin. I have been b'crat on a much smaller MediaWiki wiki and I would be most cautious as a beginner in bureaucratship. God bless, American Eagle (talk • bureaucratship) 04:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By precedent, most RfBs on enwiki have been selfnoms. Only recently have there been nominators (Rlevse, Dweller, etc). That said, I do agree with Djsasso - mistakes are not easily repairable as a bureaucrat. A healthy admin career is generally far better, as it gives potential 'crats plenty of times to "know the ropes", know their community and the RfA standards and trends, and most importantly, to know whether they really enjoy or want extra rights. I say this because a lot of admins get bored (look at enwiki for example - yes, some, if not most, have left for personal reasons, but a few have simply attained the status and decided to stop). I'm supporting, but I wish to point out why "settling in" as an administrator is crucial for future rights. Best, PeterSymonds 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do realize most are self-noms. I am just saying, I don't know that they should be. Especially in a community this small. Anyways that was never the main point. My point was that you should get more experience as an admin before you get crat responsibilities. When I say level, I mean level of trust, and there is definately a higher level of trust needed to be an admin than an editor and a crat than and admin and so forth. Basically there is no need for you to be a crat right now as the volume of activity on here is resonably fufilled by the current crat, and I think you should take a few months to settle in as admin before you try to take on even more responsibilities. -Djsasso 15:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been very inactive at this project so I just want to point out a few things, without supporting or opposing. @StaticFalcon, please bear in mind that this is not a vote, and requesting others to do so isn't appropriate. As for the candidate, here are my observations. In the recent ShockingHawk discussion on Simple, American Eagle undid the block imposed a number of times, by different administrators. This is considered wheel-warring, and shows something of the candidate's hastiness, as Gwib rightly points out. I would urge you to slow down in the future, especially if these things come up again. Remember, when promoting to admin/crat, you as a bureaucrat will not be able to undo your actions without steward intervention, and it would not look good for you if the community disagreed with one of your promotions. As an editor, what I've seen is superb though. Good luck, and I hope you don't take offence to these observations; I feel they are important, however. PeterSymonds 23:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm glad someone who I don't know well brought up points, then I know they're fully genuine. To "American Eagle undid the block imposed a number of times, by different administrators." Not true. I undid 1 block, and it was by our newest administrator who was flagged less than two weeks prior. The only reason was we had discussed it for under an hour, and it had 3-4 user for it, an oppose (myself), and several others who were not yet sure. We did not yet have consensus, and had he not sent the emails (which showed he really didn't want to be coached, the alternative to a block), he would be a regular contributor with no consensus at all for a indef block.
Gwib said "I don't particularly think one should become a 'crat so soon after becoming an admin." I think I disagree, especially with such as small project as we have here. Also Gwib, you said, "so soon after acting hastily on a block on SEWP." Kennedy was the one who was hasty, making a block without consensus, I only undid it. And also, "including edit warring, wheel warring and removing a block." For the unblock/wheel-warring, see above. But for the edit warring, I don't remember any. I never warred over editing with anyone, I just continued to say we shouldn't block someone of which there isn't consensus for and that the only reason in doing so would be a punishment for the things Creol brought up. In the SF/SH debate, I didn't wheel war beyond undoing a block made without consensus (that proved to be correct).
In this case, I don't think that a "just focus on my contributions here" scenario is fitting. This was my own nomination and I intend to be accountable to everything. I am sorry if I offended anyone in any actions I made during the heated debate (which I'm really glad Static ended for us). I don't plan to be hasty, and I only want the best for Simple English Wikiquote. I have been the most committed user here (as far as I know), and I only want to help our project grow further by becoming a bureaucrat. If I have the community's trust, I thank you. And if I don't, I'd like to know how I can further learn and grow to become the best editor, sysop, or whatever I can be. Thank you all, and God bless. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments in another part.