There are 19 administrators, and 5 bureaucrats (26%).
End date: 16:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Bureaucrat note: Due to the opposes and comment sections, a full RfB will need to be run. fr33kman 03:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello everyone, I am Pmlineditor, an administrator here for almost a year and a half now. I would like to help out with 'crat tools here, particularly in changing username and flagging bots, while helping out in RFP as well. To be honest, I haven't been very active in the past few months, as I have been exceedingly busy IRL and had no/limited access to the Internet for a few months, and haven't found the time to edit wiki. I believe I will get active from now on, and would like to help with these tools, if the community sees fit to grant them to me. I am aware that we have four active crats already, along with six other semi-active/inactive ones. However, in my opinion, this isn't a big deal, and I don't think it would be a great problem if there's one more 'crat. As an administrator, although I have made only 160 actions in the last six months, overall, I have over 4500 actions with 2000+ deletions. I have had some experience with the crat tools (although it was very limited), in the now closed Simple Wikibooks and Simple Wikiquotes. I also have some experience with the CHU process, as I had been an enwiki CHU clerk when I was active there, and am also familiar with the bot policy. I would be delighted to serve as a crat if the community has no objections. Even if this request is unsuccessful, I'll continue to edit actively, as it's no big deal after all. Thank you for your consideration. Pmlineditor∞ 16:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've plenty experienced his patience from the first few edits I ever made to his talk page, and I know he'll use the tools well—he's really one of the most intelligent people I've seen editing here. Oh, and besides that, having my old adopter become a bureaucrat sounds good. ;) ♥ingly, Bellatête-à-tête 00:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I'm pretty confident Pmlineditor is active enough to take up new responsibilities.-- Tdxiang 01:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. My job at an RFX is not to determine how active a person is. Yes that is important, but it is by no means what should be the deciding factor, in my opinion. We are all volunteers and we give time when we can. I think Pmlineditor will use these tools wisely, so I see no reason why he should not have them.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 04:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no reason not to, sure he hasn't been active a while, but it'd be an added bonus if he was promoted, besides he's got the experience and has good judgment, he wouldn't abuse the tools. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •Champagne? 04:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Gap in editing over festive period, understandable... seems fine to me. NormandieTalk! 10:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty long, er, festive period, ya? :) Jon@talk:~$ 17:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Won't do any harm. Any trusted admin is welcome to the crat tools in my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support based on positive interactions with this user at other Simple projects. He was at one point either an admin at all the four simple wikis (until two were shut down). Has my full support. Tempodivalse 21:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Interesting to read all the comments, but for me Gordonrox24 and PeterSymonds make sense. A volunteer who we know will do a good job. Peterdownunder (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support After much consideration and much discussion with the president of the United States of America, I would be supporting due to the fact that the candidate has shown much potential in being a bureaucrat and he is helpful to many of us off-wiki. It might be better if the candidate tries not to use these tools first until he is very confident and is willing to defend his actions. Hydriz (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - This user is very helpful, and his contributions are guarantee that nothing will go wrong. There's no limit to the number of bureaucrats here. Anyone could become inactive at any time for any reason with or without notice (which in this case Pmlineditor's is reasonable). There's not much point bringing up the generic 'they should have been more active' when you can have good redundancy, rather than waiting to replace one. Any editor is able to be a bureaucrat but it is up to the community's decision. Nifky^ 09:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to see some recent activity in the area of cratship, perhaps some activity on CHU or the bot pages. I echo Barras and DJsasso. Warm regards, Jon@talk:~$ 19:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per below. Not much use to someone who isn't around; would like to see more activity first. Albacore (talk·changes) 00:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going back to last May, seems barely active. Others are free to disagree with me, which is fine, but I personally think that flags such as this should be reserved for more active users. I oppose with no prejudice toward a future "support" vote should the user become more active. Kansan (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I hadn't seen you a long time, and to come back request RFB immediately seems premature. Now, if we had needed a crat, I may have supported, but we have 10 crats. That is A LOT. I don't see why we need more. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No issue with the user themself at all. But if I look at their last 100 edits it takes me back 3 months. On a wiki where there are almost zero 'crat actions in a month. Maybe 1 or 2 renames and the very rare flag request/bot request. Not sure there is much reason to give it to someone currently so inactive. But as I said I won't oppose this candidate, I just won't say yes either. So he will have to grab his support from 2 other crats. :) Best of luck. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just due to the rare activity during the last months. You should first show that you are and keep active from now on and request the flag later. You just came back from a wikibreak or something so I just feel it's too soon. However, won't support or oppose you. Maybe you get two other crats supporting you as Dj said below. -Barras (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Due to the inactivity I don't really see a reason for the tool at this point. I do feel Pmlineditor would make a fine 'crat, just not at this time. This is not a support or an oppose. Exert 03:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Questions for candidate:
Have you ever used these tools before? I understand that no experience is needed, but I believe it is better to get more experienced people to join the bureaucrat team given that there is already 10 people in it.
Yes I have. As I have stated, I had the crat flag in SimpleWB and SimpleWQ, and I have used the flag for closing RfXs and renaming. While this does not directly relate to experience with the tool, I have almost 100 edits to enWP CHU. Pmlineditor∞ 17:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What makes you want the bureaucrat flag? There is already 10 people with this right and given this small wiki, there is no need for more.
To put in bluntly, I want to help out as a 'crat in CHU and in Bots. I know we have 10 crats (although not all of them are active). Is a crat absolutely necessary at this stage? No. But would having me as a crat cause problems to the wiki? In my opinion, the answer is no, because having an additional crat won't really do the wiki harm, rather, I could take care of requests that need a crat, such as those I've mentioned earlier. I know that there is a concern that I haven't been active for some time, and that we need active people for this job. I have said earlier that my inactivity was primarily because of IRL issues, and because I had no access to the Internet for some time. I believe these issues have been resolved, and I will become as active as I used to be in 2009/early last year. Of course, my continued lack of activity last year is a valid concern, and I knew it would be brought up. To all those who have brought this issue up, I would like to assure them that I will definitely remain active from now on (maybe some less activity in some months). Thanks for asking the questions, and hope my reply answers them. :) Regards, Pmlineditor∞ 17:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe most of us would be able to trust you in these tools, since you were an administrator, but activity is the main issue in this Wikipedia. I hope your reply is favorable so that I can decide. Hydriz (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One does have to raise the question, why have we made it easier to attain bureaucrat (and basically say all admins can have it, near enough) only to then shoot people down with the normal 'we have too many' argument. Hypocritical much? I particularly make this comment in reference to the extremely pointless (And thankfully answered appropriately for how silly they are...) questions and the opposes that raise the number of bureaucrats. Activity is a fair comment to make so I'm not aiming this at those people, or those with other concerns... Goblin 14:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!Reply[reply]
The numbering reason is kinda old. I'd appreciate it (for the candidate especially) if any further discussion in general about numbers would go to either ST or the people's talk page who opposed for that reason. It's going to become an off topic discussion for this RfB anyway. So no need to discuss it here. Thanks for understanding. -Barras (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec)I think the issue stems from the fact we made it easier, while at the same time became more strict about activity.... so the two clash in a way. Atleast in this case. For me, had he either not been so inactive for the last 6 months or waited a few months before he requested, he would have been a sure fire support. But I don't want to give a flag to someone who might soon run into our activity criteria and have to remove them again. That and the fact we quite litterally have no work for a crat to do. We might have 5 crat actions in a month with 10 crats. So part of me looks at this RfB as a quest for a flag as a status symbol because we certainly have no work for them to do and they have been inactive for so long, and the wiki has become increasingly anti-inactivity. Personally if I were him I would voluntarily withdraw and show his activity for a month or two to regain that activity level, at which point I am more than positive he would have the 2 crats to support him so he wouldn't have to go through RfB. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's basically my point guys, I understand that the numbers come into the activity-related opposes but when people are making the comments purely on the numbers then it goes completely against the criteria, so just felt the point needed highlighting. Neither of your two opposes were being mentioned with regards to my comment! :)Goblin 16:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor!Reply[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.