Meta:Requests for bureaucratship/Daniel

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Daniel

Hi all, if Meta is happy with it, I'd like to become a bureaucrat here. As I said at my RfA, I wasn't entirely comfortable going through the method at the time (ask and get it given), which led to my proposing what is now the method for bureaucrat nominations (see here). Now that the new procedure is in place, I've been an admin here a total of nine months, six months of which has been as a regular administrator (as required by the bureaucrat policy), and have been relatively active (bar some 48-72-96 hour periods when I've been working a lot, which makes it impossible for me to get to my laptop), with >40 logged actions and >750 edits, I would be happy to assist as a bureaucrat should the community also be happy for me to. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Daniel. I was wondering if you were familiar with the "gotchas" of Bureaucrat tools yet? (A quick example: You rename someone to the Wrong Name. You now have to wait until all the contributions have been moved to the correct name before you attempt to fix the mistake, lest that person lose edits.) Kylu 02:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It happened to me on enwiki when I was renamed, as all my edits didn't get transferred immediately and someone was having trouble deleting an article with revisions attributed to my old name; they had to wait for the db to reattribute them before doing so. Ultimately I think the biggest thing is to ask if I have any questions. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need more bureaucrats? — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the harm? Majorly ^talk 04:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - His request for 'cratship is as valid as yours or mine, Mike. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just don't understand why we need more bureaucrats. And while we're on the subject... Why do we need a not-particularly-active admin to be a bureaucrat? — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support We made it easy to get and remove bureaucrat rights here on purpose and he's certainly qualified. After a brief chat elsewhere, I'm satisfied that he understands the potential pitfalls as well. Kylu 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect we have more 'crats than we "need". That said I'm fine with granting Daniel the rights. ++Lar: t/c 06:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well stats time ..since 22nd June (i.e the last 6 months) you have had 179 edits (not including the request) of which 31 edits are to your userspace and as an admin (permanent - not including log entries to own userspace, you have just 20 admin actions) which simply means you are not an active admin though you are an active enough editor. I'm not supporting this or opposing this, just saying that it doesn't matter that you are very active on another wikimedia project, but if you are inactive here, then thats not good enough. The requirements states 150 edits/log actions which you just fall under but what I don't understand is why are you requesting it now. I know you are really busy with the english wiki and OTRS and I know you won't have time for this so why request it in the first place and i hope you follow up on the comment you made ;) .....--Comet styles 10:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than Mardetanha's whoops, we're rather going according to his comment at the moment. Let the community voice be heard, and if closing consensus happens to agree with the opinions given so far, then there's no problem, correct? What was the bureaucrat promotion process at the time of his RfA, by the way? Kylu 17:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was ask for it in this section and get it within about 60seconds generally :) Daniel (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do fine. Support. AGK 12:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel (talk · contribs) for this added capacity. Agree with AGK (talk · contribs), Kylu (talk · contribs), and Lar (talk · contribs), above. Daniel has good judgment and will do fine as a 'crat. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support bastique ^demandez! 18:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it is going to be a voting page i should Support my support --Mardetanha ^talk 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alex Pereira ^falaê 19:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Promoted - user promoted, no valid concerns, now go give grawp sysops and get it over with ...--Comet styles 01:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]