NSWiki:New bureaucrats

Pacitalia (2/0/4)

Bureaucratship granted by Goobergunch|? on 22:37, 8 January 2006 (GMT)

Extended by Goobergunch on 02:44, 31 December 2005 (GMT). The lack of activity in voting here seems to be because of the holidays, and I'm going to allow a chance for this to fix itself.

Pacitalia's been helpful to a lot of people, and is very active on NSWiki. He gives constructive critism where due and praise where that's due, and he's a fabulous all-round guy ;). So, nominating Paci for bureaucratship. LE (WP) | Talk (C) 06:50, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
Support

1. As nominator LE (WP) | Talk (C) 06:50, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
   
2. Paci's done a great job, and is pretty active. I think he's earned it. → Ceo\squawk 16:14, December 23, 2005 (GMT)

Oppose

Neutral

1. I could not justifiably vote either way, until someone explains what a bureaucrat actually does, or points to a page where this is noted. Gruen2alk 16:20, 23 December 2005 (GMT)

   The wikipedia definition is at Wikipedia:Administrators#Bureaucrats. → Ceo\squawk 17:27, December 23, 2005 (GMT)

   More interested in the NSwiki definition for now. Gruen2alk 17:50, 23 December 2005 (GMT)

   I think the powers include basically changing user names and rights, as well as just being held to higher standards in Nswiki. There's no real page that says that, but the bureaucrat log lists changes in user rights, and that's what it says on wikipedia, which runs on the same software. → Ceo\squawk 17:59, December 23, 2005 (GMT)

2. It is not that I am not pleased with Paci as a sysop (I am very much so) but rather that I do not see why these extra powers should be given to him, specifically, and why they should be given to him now. I'll also wait for the word from Goober on this decision, which will weigh very heavily on my decision on how to vote. It should be noted that I really like Pacitalia, so that is completely not an issue. UPDATE: my abstention is going to reflect Goobers vote in this case then. --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 22:54, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
3. I'm not going to vote. However, I'll note that a bureaucrat has exactly one power that a sysop doesn't have; the power to create new sysops and bureaucrats (and set bot flags, but anybody running a bot on NSwiki had better talk to me first). User rename changes cannot be done without database-level access, as Wikipedia's tool is not part of the standard MediaWiki distribution. --Goobergunch|? 03:27, 24 December 2005 (GMT)
4. I've not been active enough to be aware of the nominee's strengths or weaknesses, so I can't vote in favor. However, given the relatively minor additional power involved, I would like to be on record as not opposing this nomination. → Fris Θtalk 02:37, 3 January 2006 (GMT)

Comments

• I'm surprised at your sentiments after I blasted you above for your own nomination. Thanks for nominating me, though - I'm honoured! --Pacitalkia 07:11, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
  • Commonwealth English speakers are always good. :P LE (WP) | Talk (C) 07:16, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
• This vote has reached the end of the extention. Is it going to be extended again, or is it finished? → Ceo \ squawk 22:26, 5 January 2006 (GMT)
  • I'll get to it once I've had a chance to log in and such. Although more people voting wouldn't be a bad thing either. --Goobergunch|? 22:43, 6 January 2006 (GMT)

Questions for the candidate

1. People expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I spend a lot of time on here (but not too much ;) ) so I know much of the general dispute that goes on here between users, as well as the ability to catch vandals and linkspammers when I see it happening. I'm the kind of guy who will defend his argument until the only way to go is a compromise, but that does not mean I can't see the other side - and that is a big reason why I prefer to be fair and clear-headed when mediating disputes. Most of my attempts at engaging the community involve linking other users to NSwiki articles for reference - I think the more people that know the Wiki is here and open to everyone, the more users will sign up and contribute. Plus I'm pleased to see the quality and quantity of users' work is increasing steadily; that is a very good sign for the health of this Wiki. I feel that I meet these standards because a lot of people trust my judgment and ask for help or advice on their editing or styling, which is nice to see. I'm always happy to lend a hand.

2. Why bureaucrat? Why not simply remain sysop?

A. A good question - I feel, generally, that I have worked hard and served the community well enough to qualify for that extra responsibility. It's not my intention to influence others to vote for me here, so if people feel strongly enough that I should be elevated to a higher position, I hope they comment and vote on this topic. Still, as I said, it's not up to me, in my mind, whether I go up the ladder here - but up to the users that are pleased with the way I worked as a sysop.

3. If voted in, do you anticipate having the main consequence of that being that you would have extra responsibility in setting user rights, or do you feel that it would mainly serve as a promotion in recognition of work as a sysop?

A. I have a feeling that many people would vote me in based on the latter, but I would prefer it would be for the former - and as such, people would be able to trust me with those extra responsibilities.