This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments in another part, not here.
After reviewing and reading through the entire RfA, I have made a decision.
In American Eagle's request for bureaucratship, there was one major point that was a problem—communication. As discussed, American Eagle does not talk with others first when a problem occurs, and instead, quickly goes into action. American Eagle has stated he regrets what he has done, admits it was a big mistake, and promises never to do it again. His problematic actions were rather recent; probably by about 1–4 months ago. Anyway, Simple English Wikiquote is a small, but growing wiki. Very few bureaucrat actions are needed. Mostly admin actions need to be done around the wiki, which results in admins having more tasks to do than bureaucrats.
If American Eagle became a bureaucrat, there would be a lot of time to be patient and to take the time to properly complete tasks that require bureaucrat attention or action. Now we have two bureaucrats also, so you don't have to worry as much. You can take the time to be a bureaucrat for Simple English Wikiquote more than being an administrator. Since American Eagle does say he will never do what he did wrong again, assuming good faith is what we should do. We assume in good faith that American Eagle's words are true, and that he has truly learned from his mistakes. American Eagle, we expect that you keep those words. If you see a bureaucrat action that needs to be done, take your time to complete it. Watch carefully on what you do. If in doubt, discuss. If you're not sure if the next action you do is correct, discuss. If you think you can't, let another bureaucrat handle it; no rush at all. Patience is key. Keep it.
Therefore, I conclude that this request for bureaucratship is successful. — RyanCross (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. I would like to present to the community American Eagle for bureaucrat because I believe that he will make a wonderful addition to the already great Coppertwig. That way, we will have two active bureaucrats on this project who will be able to help out in the future. He has already made quite a few edits to this project and is very active in the community and shows all of the qualities that I look for in someone who wants to become a bureaucrat. American Eagle is one of the only people around here who I would trust with the flag and I definitely believe that he will do much good for this project if he were given the chance. Cheers, Razorflame 20:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Candidate's acceptance: I accept. Before today, I really wasn't expecting a RfB, but I accept. I will never abuse the tools, if granted them. Thank you. American Eagle (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Support as nominator. Razorflame 20:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
More than one bureaucrat is always a good thing, and AE has plenty of experience. A good candidate that will make a good bureaucrat. EVula// talk // ☯ // 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
SupportDang it Razorflame, you beat me to nominating AE!!! I can only see SEWQ benefiting with AE as a bureaucrat. Shapiros10(talk) 23:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Shapiros10, I do apologize for not waiting. I did think about you, though. ;) American Eagle (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - Not sure if my vote counts, given my excessively little activity here, but I think AE will do well with the extra tools. Juliancolton 00:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Support — Definitely. Probably the most active user here. Would make a fine bureaucrat for our project. — RyanCross (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Support I admit I was ambivalent last time, but I see no issue here. There is absolutely no harm with two bureaucrats, and I think you'll do a good job. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - I see nothing wrong with the candidate, and think he'll make a good Bureaucrat. Yotcmdr 17:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
OpposeWeak oppose.(13:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)) I'm very sorry that I feel a need to oppose the RfB of my wikifriend American Eagle. American Eagle came here when there was almost nobody here except me, and did so many things, working on Quote of the Day, the Christmas page, the Wikiquote News as well as many edits to quote pages. If we made people bureaucrats for working hard, building the project and making it an interesting place to work, I would be saying "Strong Support", but because of something that happened in the last few weeks, I can't. I think that when someone does something we think is wrong, the first thing to do is to talk to them about it on their talk page, not to revert or unblock without talking. American Eagle doesn't agree. I think this is even more important with bureaucrat buttons. American Eagle does a lot of good work, but I think bureaucrats need to be willing to respect, and to try to understand, other peoples' ideas about how to do things. I think American Eagle would need to work on this before becoming a bureaucrat. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I am glad that you had the boldness to oppose me, especially when you are going against the grain. It shows you are a good bureaucrat, in my opinion. However, that only makes it more vital that I answer the problems you've raised. Here is what I need to say, and this is not to persuade you to change you vote, I only want to explain.
I regret so many things regarding the StaticFalcon/FastReverter issues. At the time, I was standing up for what I thought was right, defending the outcast, who didn't deserve the punishment he was receiving. I now know it was in vain, and he has been blocked (justifiably) on both projects. I also regret undoing both administrative blocks, on here and Wikipedia, and have learned that should never, ever be done. I and will never do it again, no matter what I think of the prior action. Users on IRC can confirm, I wish it all had never happened. It has fully tarnished my reputation forever. Coppertwig, if I fail this RfB, I will not let it damage our wikifriend-ship, and I still think you are a good 'crat. TheAEtalk 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your answer.
I think you don't need to go that far. It can be OK to undo a block. It's just that you have to talk first with the admin who did the block. Sometimes things aren't black and white: they aren't just right or wrong, they're things that different people have different ideas about.
This isn't about that block. This isn't about unblocking. This is about whether you talk to people when you disagree, and whether you think there is one right answer or you listen to other peoples' ideas. Regards, Wikifriend. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought about that after my reply (second part). I honestly think that I do listen to others (for example, changing my vote here to go with consensus), and in that case I was trying to defend myself (or, defend the innocent Static). But, I'll just let this go, I won't try to persuade your vote. God bless, TheAEtalk 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, it isn't really about talking either. It's about pushing buttons too fast. With some of the bureaucrat buttons, if you decide later that you made a mistake, you can't easily change it. I think a bureaucrat needs to be slow and careful. I think you can learn to do that, but I would like to see you show that ability for some time, before you start being a bureaucrat. Because of your answers, I'm changing to "weak opppose". All the best, ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
... and I agree that you're a good admin. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I would have to agree with Coppertwig. I have seen a tendancy to jump to action a little to fast before thinking or talking things over with others. Definately a beneficial admin, but I worry about quick decisions when it comes 'crat actions. -Djsasso 02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as someone that's familiar with 'crat actions... well, there's only three of them: promotion, renaming, and bot flags. Renaming very rarely requires much decision, quick or otherwise, and promotion only happens after a week or more of discussion. Bot flags I suppose could be applied "too quickly", but they can be removed just as quickly by any other bureaucrat. Not meaning to harass you, I'm just pointing out that there really aren't that many 'crat actions. :) EVula// talk // ☯ // 04:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The number of bureaucrat actions is small, but the ones that only go in one direction can have a big effect. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Such as? The sysop flag can be removed easily, as can the bot flag. I don't really think that there's much of a problem with renames. Shapiros10(talk) 13:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Er, sorry, but you're wrong. Look at Special:ListGroupRights; bureaucrats don't have the ability to remove the sysop flag (compare it against Meta's bureaucrats; we do have the ability to de-sysop people there). Special:Desysop doesn't exist, and likely never will; that's not the system for removing the administrator bit; the system is the same as granting. EVula// talk // ☯ // 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Technically a steward must access m:Special:Userrights/Example@simplewikiquote and untick the relevant flags. It is quickly removed in the case of mistakes by the bureaucrat, but sometimes the damage is done before a steward gets to it. Not that I'm speculating that will happen, but it just looks bad when local crats make mistakes (not that I'm speculating mistakes will be made, of course). PeterSymonds (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
In the case of obvious mistakes, I think a steward will remove the flag. But in the case of disagreement, I think stewards will not remove the flag, unless there is some kind of process or consensus in the community for removing the flag. (☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)) If the bureaucrat says that they changed their mind, I think the stewards will not remove the flag. By the way, the two buttons bureaucrats have that only go in one direction are the button to make someone an admin and the button to make someone a bureaucrat. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't trust his judgment, and that's the number one thing I look for in crats. Its nothing personal, and has absolutely nothing to do with your experience as an admin. Synergy 21:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You cannot use the reason, We don't need another bureaucrat for opposition as that has nothing to do with whether or not he will do good with the flag or not. Razorflame 20:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, someone thinking we only need a single bureaucrat is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. (and I say this as a bureaucrat on several projects) Not a good one (in my opinion), but valid; to say that someone cannot say something isn't especially helpful. EVula// talk // ☯ // 20:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, you are right about that....sorry about that. I've stricken out what I said. Razorflame 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments in another part.