Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights/RFB archive/Sikon

< Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights | RFB archive
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Sikon (2 bureaucrat + 7 admins + 11 users/1 user/1 admin)

Two week deadline from first request, voting ends November 27th.

Support

  1. Imp 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. For. Fnlayson 20:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Roron Corobb 21:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Havac 22:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Cull Tremayne 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. QuentinGeorge 07:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC) - A mad Wiki scientist.
  8. Definitely. Chack Jadson 19:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Kuralyov 20:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. He's definitely been a great help and is a good choice for this. --Xwing328(Talk) 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    Went over his record with the proverbial "fine-tooth comb" and couldn't find any reason he's not worthy of the bureaucrat title. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 23:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Good enough for Imp, good enough for me. Bub 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Adamwankenobi 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Yoshi626 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. jSarek 06:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Azizlight 10:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC). Go Sikon!
  17. One bureaucrat vote here, but this cannot end until WhiteBoy has applied his vote. Otherwise, having an unanimous bureaucrat vote is not possible. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No it doesn't. Our policy states that "bureaucrats' votes must be unanimous for bureaucratship to be accepted," not that all bureaucrats must vote. Kuralyov 05:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • On the talk page, it states that the Bureaucrat's votes must be unanimous. Maybe the meaning got skewered when this page got updated? StarNeptuneTalk to me! 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • On the talk page, it says "100% of participating bureaucrats, 75% of participating admins, 66% of participating users." That does not mean 100% of all bureaucrats, just those that vote. It would be ridiculous to try to get even all admins to vote here, let alone users, and givne how rarely Riff and especially Whiteboy participate even getting both of them would extend the voting ridiculously long. Kuralyov 05:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Later on the page, it says 75% of both admin and user votes, unanimous bureaucrat votes. I don;t know which one is the correct one...I'm assuming it's the later one. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 05:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
            • And again, that only mentions unanimous votes while, as you said, it was made after the point about counting participating voters, a point that no one challenged. The meaning is clear. And if it is taken to mean that all bureaucrats must vote before this can be closed, then it also means that this must stay open until 75% of both admins and all registered users vote, neither of which will ever happen. Kuralyov 05:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Yet asking for one more bureaucrat to show up isn't as hard as finding all admins. Perhaps we won't have this problem with three if we don't need all of them. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Yet the rule is there and if it is decided to apply it that way it would be the heights of hypocrisy to then only apply it partially. Kuralyov 06:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Then if you say unianimous, and there's only two here, we do it the way it was planned and we wait for the second. It will then get progressively harder to create unianimity with more bureaucrats. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well, before anyone else starts throwing the term "hypocrisy" around, let's just remember this is the first time we've had a request for bureaucratship. I think the person who founded the whole damn wiki should have a say in something as important as this. --Azizlight 11:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • That's exactly what I'm saying down at the bottom of the page. – Aidje talk 16:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. Sorry to get others all hot-and-bothered. I was simply waiting until I'd heard other's opinions. The date had simply slipped up on me. Like Aziz, I have found myself disagreeing with him on a few occasions. But I don't recall any of them being serious, and he has done alot work to make our wiki better. WhiteBoy 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 05:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral/comments

Due to Riff and WhiteBoy's lessened activity, I think we could use at least one more bureaucrat. Sikon is a great candidate for the job, being deeply involved with the wiki (closing a number of difficult CTs and VFDs) and being very active. He has accepted the nomination. --Imp 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Being one of the few among us who really seems to understand the MediaWiki stuff, I'm inclined to support this even though his infamous "defaulting to policy" annoyed me. :-P And if we ever get neat new toys they might go to bureaucrats first, and I can't think of anyone better than Sikon for that job. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Neat new toys? Could you explain? -- Riffsyphon1024 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Forum:Wiki feature requests - I figure that any new features, if authentication is required, will go to bureaucrats first. Of course, I base this on nothing except the fact that it's how I would do it. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 20:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reasons for oppose:
  • Doesn't fulfill #5 requirement- he nominated a talk page— a highly contentious, poorly written, and flame-warred talk page— for FA to be put on full main page display for a week..
In my opinion, handled the ED article on us in a manner that only served to give those idiots more attention than they deserved.
Questionable handling of the Anakin/Vader merger vote. I'm not sure I agree with the timing of that choice. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 05:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I must admit that I've also quietly disagreed with Sikon twice in the past (both unrelated to Atarumaster's observations above), but nothing really worth mentioning. Certainly nothing worth stopping him from getting a well-deserved bureaucratship regardless. But I do believe that having "Requests for bureaucratship" is not the right way of doing this. Bureaucratship is different than adminship. Perhaps a number of suitable nominees should be evaluated at the same time, and the one or two most suitable nominees should become the new bureaucrats --Azizlight 11:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC).
  • Wait. I think that we should wait for WhiteBoy's vote before closing this. Since we only have two bureaucrats, I think that they should both approve this. (If Sikon is approved, giving us three bureaucrats, I think that we should require that at least two of them vote to approve any future bureaucrat nominees.) – Aidje talk 06:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And if he doesn't show up within the next day?--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 06:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Given the holiday, I'd give him a little bit of time. Someone should probably email him if that hasn't been done already. I don't think the need for a third bureaucrat is so pressing that Sikon should be approved without due process. First non-founder bureaucrat is a big step in my book, I say it's worth waiting. – Aidje talk 06:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)