Meta:Requests for bureaucratship/Linuxbeak

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

Linuxbeak

Vote closed not promoted; not met the promotion criteria (not stated specially; presumably 75% support of all votes). (Result: Oppose; 11, Support; 7, Neutral; 2) --Aphaia 10:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I've been a sysop for a few months now, and I've been a bureaucrat on English Wikipedia since December. In connection with Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta, I am requesting that I be given bureaucratship rights. RFA is often backlogged, and username change requests on Meta are non-existent. I want to help speed up things, so I'm asking that you give me a vote of confidence. It won't be a big deal if I'm not given the bureaucrat flag, but it would be a great help.

I first looked at the Meta RFA process to see if there was anything in relation to bureaucrats. There wasn't. I asked Jimbo if I could be a bureaucrat, and after a quick discussion, he said that he had no problem with me being one. He pointed me to Angela and Anthere for confirmation. Angela told me to go here, so here I am. Linuxbeak 01:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Aphaia, basically. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jimbo's assent is good enough for me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: ~~Currently~~. The proposed reasons seem not to make a sense to me. Without bureaucrat flag, anyone can create those pages, and we have already many bureaucrats on meta. --Aphaia 02:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I stated that I want to keep RFA up to date and process username changes. Linuxbeak 02:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't make a sense. I stated you could have drafted username change policy in details and set a request page, without flag. As for RFA, I haven't seen you archive past votes which could be archived without disputes, as far as I know. --Aphaia 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - After checking your deletion log, I incline to more stronger voice; though your effort and good will, you seem still not to be familiar to meta & its policies, and suitable for admin privilege at this moment, regretfully. --Aphaia 06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are enough bureaucrats, please answer: where are they and what are they doing? - David Gerard 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, gently. Only a question of need; I don't see a need for more bureaucrats at this time. Intervene only when there is an extent problem, and then only enough to resolve that problem. - Amgine / ^{talk meta} 04:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If we don't need more bureaucrats, where are the present ones? There appears to be nobody minding the store - David Gerard 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Utterly committed, utter trustworthy. The only to restrict 'crat enterance is security, but there are no security issues with Linuxbeak --Doc glasgow 12:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 15 edits on meta. All to user page and vote here. Anthere
  - (True, so discount the vote if that's the rules - but being an admin with 10k+ edits on en.wiki perhaps entitles me to be a character witness)--Doc glasgow 18:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you therefore suspect he is a sockpuppet, a shill or is otherwise voting in bad faith? (Those being the usual reasons for putting someone's editing pattern after a vote.) If you consider he is voting in bad faith, please do state so outright. If you do not, please clarify why you added this comment - David Gerard 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps that the user is not an "active" meta user, and in that vien perhaps "misled". I remember a tiff a while back about en admins not being able to be commons admins... sort of the same thing here maybe? Meta and en are different projects, but I understand the fervant support of users who are otherwise good admins on en. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, not like this at all — the commons issue was because the service project's deletion of images used on the encyclopedia project was affecting the encyclopedia project. (That was part of the ongoing issue that some people on Commons appear to have decided it is a separate project and not the service project for the other wikis it was created as. One consequence of this is that, e.g, en.wikinews recommends users not use Commons, and instead upload images locally, because they feel Commons just cannot be relied on for their purposes.) - David Gerard 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all the reasons listed above. notafish }<';> 12:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the present bureaucrats appear not to be doing the job. Millosh's "week-long" admin request was waiting how long? There is visibly no-one minding the store - David Gerard 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it does say "at least 1 week" :) - but seriously while you are right, I'd rather pick someone else at the moment - or even better, Linuxbeak once he/she begins to understand meta policy. It's nothing against Linuxbeak either, I mean I have his/her message deal on my en talk page for crying out loud :). I'd like to see Linuxbeak as a bureaucrat as well, and I'm (and prob. others as well) just asking for a little more time. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too new. Korg + ⁺ 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not? Brian ^{Wikinews / Talk} 09:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Many Meta admins are Stewards also, and the interface is common. I don't thinkis necessary. -Romihaitza 12:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think it not necessary. Not personal (I like LinuxBeak :-)) Anthere 16:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per David Gerard. --Blu Aardvark 22:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while Linuxbeak has my full confidence, I must agree with some of the previous oppose votes above. En is different from meta. Please give it more time, and I will gladly support. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. villy ♦✎ 11:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
neutral - It is true sometimes it can take some time where befor a request is noticed. I have added "bureaucrats" to request page Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. That will help. But you need to ask. --Walter 10:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. oscar 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think its necessary, plus I feel putting too much power in few hands is BAD, no offence to Linuxbeak, just don't think its a good idea. Onthost 07:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too new. --Marbot 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Phe 08:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. James F. (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]