Wookieepedia:Requests for bureaucratship

This page is for requests for bureaucratship.

Admins may be nominated here purely by another admin or bureaucrat. Self-nominations are not allowed. Voting will last two weeks from when the nominee officially accepts the nomination, at which time, if the vote is affirmative, he or she will be granted bureaucrat status.

To view past requests, see the RFB archive. See also Requests for adminship.

Requirements
There are some basic things to consider when nominating an admin for bureaucratship.


 * 1) They are an admin.
 * 2) They have actively contributed for at least a year to the wiki.
 * 3) They have actively taken on additional responsibilities to make the encyclopedia better.
 * 4) They have dealings with other users on a regular basis in a fair, restrained, and constructive manner.
 * 5) They have have a deep understanding of the community's methods of operation.
 * 6) Registered users' votes must have a 3/4ths supermajority for bureaucratship to be accepted (Only users who have been registered for over a month&mdash;from the day the nomination is put forth&mdash;are counted).
 * 7) Administrators' votes must have a 3/4ths supermajority for bureaucratship to be accepted.
 * 8) Bureaucrats' votes must be unanimous for bureaucratship to be accepted.
 * 9) Additionally, the nominee may be asked a series of questions by users. While it is not required to answer them, it is strongly encouraged since it may affect how others decide and vote on the RFB.

Questions
More as I think of more... - Sikon 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * S1 How do you see the difference between an admin and a bureaucrat?
 * S2 What will you use your new status for if your nomination succeeds?
 * S3 How many admins do you think we need?
 * S4 How many bureaucrats do you think we need?
 * S5 How often do you think bureaucrats should use their veto power on RFA?

Jaymach (9 users + 6 admins + 1 bureaucrat/ 3 admins/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends (insert date).

Support

 * 1) It has been discussed on the Mofference that we'll be recruiting a total of 5 bureaucrats for now, and I'd like to propose two IRC regulars, who have demonstrated organizatorial skills in the past and have been a pleasure to work with. Sikon 00:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  G .He (Talk!) 00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) ...just so I can get Culator's vote...POWAAAHHH!!! UN-LIM-I-TED POWWWWAAAHHH!!!...but really? Thanks. :) Not honestly too sure what I'd do with the status, but at least then I could feel all official when I pay for skins to be made for this site (eventually, sorry it's taking so long). &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this counted as a legitimate vote, Jay? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea...I just did it to make sure everyone know I accepted...feel free not to count it in the tally. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've always considered the candidate's acceptance to count as one vote in their favor. -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 01:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Yoshi  626 [[Image:Yoshiegg.jpg|20px]] 00:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Havac 01:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Only if I can choose when to be his translating slave/servant —Xwing328 (Talk) 03:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) For. Fnlayson 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Definitely. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8)  - breathesgelatin Talk 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Yeah KEJ 21:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Kuralyov 21:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Imp 22:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) SFH 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Cull Tremayne 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Chack Jadson 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) --Eyrezer 10:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Per Aziz down below. --Imp 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) For the same reasons I stated for Darth Culator below. Sorry. --Azizlight 00:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Nothing personal. I just don't think that we currently need more bureaucrats.– 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral/comments

 * S1 How do you see the difference between an admin and a bureaucrat?

It's more of a figurehead position, as well as being given somewhat more responsiblity at the moment. Although the admins are usually seen as the face of the site (though we shouldn't be as, due to the Wiki's nature, all of our users truly are), the bureaucrats are generally seen as the owners. Now, while this is not necessarily the case, I can certainly see why outsiders and even some users might think so. Due to this, it makes it even more necessary to show a professional face and to try not to let personal feelings/matters affect a bureaucrat's responsibilities. As for an issue of power, I feel there's truly very little difference...bureaucrat's only gain the power to promote other admins/bureaucrats, and don't even have the power to take that status away. As per below, however, bureaucrat's may later gain more actual power.


 * S2 What will you use your new status for if your nomination succeeds?

Not too much, to be quite frank...if I feel it's needed, I'll veto votes...it will also help me both feel and seem more official when I try to pay for skinners to design new skins for the Wookieepedia. Obviously, if/when new admins have been voted in, I'll upgrade them from regular peon...err...Wookieepedian :) status. As per above/below, I may also start using the status to try to make myself look more professional, as I'm sure there are certain times where that is not the case at the moment, though I can't think of any at the moment.


 * S3 How many admins do you think we need?

Hmm...a tough question really...I don't particularly want to put any specific number cap on it...I also don't feel, however, that all users should be upgraded to admin status when they've been on the site for so long or done so many good edits...sometimes people can be great editors, but terrible in terms of people skills, and so they would not be elligable. Really, the number varies as we grow and as the vandalism comes...if we had more vandalism, we may need more admins...also, if admins disappeared slowly due to real life constraints, then we may need to promote new admins to act in their stead. If I was going to put any solid number on it at the moment, I'd say 24...but I really don't want to do that, as it's entirely possible that we may need more or other people may prove themselves to be fitting for the role.


 * S4 How many bureaucrats do you think we need?

Hmm...tough question, really...at the current time, I don't feel we need too many...at the moment all they can really do is veto votes (which is both a good and a bad thing), and promote other admins. At a later time, when/if Wikia decides to implement them being able to turn on/off certain features, it may be handy to have a few more...at the current time, I'm tempted to agree with the number suggested in the IRC room of 5, maybe 6.
 * S5 How often do you think bureaucrats should use their veto power on RFA?

Honestly? Whenever it's needed...I'm not saying we should be told to use them as soon as we reach XX amount of admins...but if people raise particularly good points about why a Wookieepedian is not elligable for adminship, then I believe it should be used. Also, if the cabal decides it, of course :) Certainly it shouldn't be used when it's simply a personal matter, and if I get the position then I'll have to be more vigilant to ensure that I don't veto votes purely because I have a personal bias against any Wookieepedian. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Darth Culator (8 users + 5 admins + 1 bureaucrat/2 users + 3 admins/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends (insert date).

Support

 * 1) See above. Sikon 00:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  G .He (Talk!) 00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Hell yeah!-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Oldsith.png|30px]] 00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4)  Yoshi  626 [[Image:Yoshiegg.jpg|20px]] 00:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) When I was a newbie here, I mistook him for a bureaucrat.  Bub  Talk  00:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) You know the world's coming to an end when this happens...but I say let it end! &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) He has a sense of humor :P And I've never had any problems —Xwing328 (Talk) 03:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Definitely. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) While very opinionated, I think he does a good job of not letting that carry over to his administrative actions. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) I thought he was already an admin.... well, I hope he will be. KEJ 21:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He is an admin, just not a bureaucrat. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just found out, well, then I hope he'll be a bureaucrat. My vote still stands. KEJ 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Kuralyov 21:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Imp 22:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) SFH 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Cull Tremayne 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Chack Jadson 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) This vote isn't really against Darth Culator, but against having more bureaucrats in general. I really don't see the need for more. Don't forget, under the current system, bureaucrats have "veto" power in important votes. I don't think such powers should be handed out so lightly. Looks like I'll be in the vast minority, but that's my 2 creds anyway. --Azizlight 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah, I tend to agree. While I think Culator would make a great bureaucrat, I don't think we need to hand out veto power (which is all this really is) willy-nilly. Additionally, while I still think there's nothing about Culator that would make him a bad bureaucrat, the number is so limited that I feel we need to make sure that our bureaucrats are the absolute best they can be, and I'm not sure that there aren't other options that should be explored rather than endorsing the first two picks made by another bureaucrat. Havac 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Aziz and Havac. --Imp 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Same as above.– 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Aziz, though there have been a select few occasions where I've thought his conduct a tad inappropriate for a BC. :-P And There Is No Cabal. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 01:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral/comments

 * Um, seriously? I think a lot of people will consider me too opinionated to be promoted. -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't think like that. (Gets ready to change vote) :) One or both of you will probably get the bureaucratic veto anyway.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Oldsith.png|30px]] 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From whom? MWAHAHAHAHA! Well, it's possible, but I wouldn't say "probably" so soon. It's up to Riff, really. - Sikon 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..... Hmmmmmmmm..... These are tough.


 * S1 How do you see the difference between an admin and a bureaucrat?
 * It's a minor technical distinction, really. Just like being an admin but with an extra button. Or a few more extra buttons, if the Wikia guys ever give us new features. An admin is just a user who can lock and delete stuff. A bureaucrat is just an admin who can make more admins. There's not much else to it.


 * S2 What will you use your new status for if your nomination succeeds?
 * Not a whole heck of a lot. I'd exercise the will of the people if there's an RFA, or exercise a veto if I really feel it's necessary. And that's pretty much it.


 * S3 How many admins do you think we need?
 * 42. http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/9.gif
 * No, really, we need as many as we need. There's no way to be more specific. I think we need whichever people will be good at adminish stuff. I feel like we should set some maximum number derived from a ratio based on the size of the userbase or the database, but I haven't given it nearly enough thought.


 * S4 How many bureaucrats do you think we need?
 * A round number. It has to be odd. 5 is good. Or 9. But not 6 or 8 because they're even. And not 7 because it's too hard and angular.


 * S5 How often do you think bureaucrats should use their veto power on RFA?
 * More often than never and less often than always.
 * I'd really only feel the need if I had a really bad gut feeling about a person (which hasn't happened on any RFA to date, as far as I can remember), or if I felt the nomination was due to popularity rather than suitability or skill. I don't much care about people's opinions, as long as they abide by our policies where applicable. And I would always abide by the will of the Cabal, if it existed (but it doesn't). http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/3.gif -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 03:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

jSarek (0 users + 1 admins + 1 bureaucrat/0/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends December 27

I offer an alternative to which I believe is more worthy of the position.

Support

 * 1) Riffsyphon1024 08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Hell yes.– 08:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral/comments
If we really must have another bureaucrat, jSarek would be my first choice.– 08:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)