Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights/RFB archive/StarNeptune

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

StarNeptune (3 admins + 1 user/5 admins + 2 users/1 admin)

Two week deadline from first request, voting ends 2 March 2008.

Support
  1. Cull Tremayne 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. In the absence of Sikon, and the return of Star, I support this nomination. I do hope that Star stays with us more now that she can become a community leader. She has always been a positive person and an awesome Wookieepedian that is well knowledged in the realm of Hapans. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. It's good to have Star back.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 09:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. I'm in favor of this, for several reasons:
    1. Star is amply qualified to represent the community, which bureaucrats do more than other admins whether they like it or not.
    2. Star's absences are no less reasonable than certain other bureaucrats.
    3. Why the heck not? It's not like we have some limit on the number of users with any of the various types of elevated privileges.
    • So give it some thought before you jump on the opposition bandwagon. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 03:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    I've known Star for a long time and she certainly deserves it. Her contributions here speak for themselves. Good lucky, Jenny. :) (p.s. meteorites4lyfe) --Charitwo 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC) (Vote struck per single-issue voters policy)
Oppose
  1. Star's great. But with the veto gone, the only real point of bureaucrats is dishing out user rights. And for that, you want someone who's around a lot, which Star isn't. Havac 07:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Chack Jadson (Talk) 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. With her attendance record, I don't know if I trust her as an admin, let alone a bureaucrat. --Imperialles 14:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This comment is completely hypocritical coming from you, Imp, considering you'd left for 6 months at a time in the past. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 12:09, 17 February 2008 (EST)
      • I'm not the one requesting bureaucratship, though. --Imperialles 03:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
        • However you are an bureaucrat and I would expect you to act like one. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, how is stating my opinion unfitting of a bureaucrat? If you wish to continue this conversation, please do so on my talk page or on IRC. --Imperialles 11:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. I really like Star, and putting her personal abilities aside, I don't believe she's been around lately long enough for me to believe she warrants this. Greyman(Paratus) 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Can't say I can support this. At the very least, Riffs, jSarek, and Imp have been around enough recently and we haven't had a rash of RFAs or RFRs or anything. Unless we're trying to give out some extremely expensive candy to long-time users (which I don't advocate in this case), having another bureaucrat who hasn't been active in awhile is a hard case to make. Were we three months in the future and Star had been consistently active and other BCs hadn't been, my vote would be different. It's nothing personal. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. I feel she has been absent too much for this. --Eyrezer 12:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Ataru pretty much states my thoughts— although Star's certainly capable, I don't feel that she's been back long enough to simply hand BC powers (diminished though they may be) to her. Per the above, nothing personal against her, but it doesn't seem to me that she is any more deserving than a few other admins that have been consistently active recently. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 02:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Since bureaucrats no longer have veto power, and there's some precedent for the idea that bureaucrats can't speak for the entire site or make major changes without discussing it with the rest of the group, it doesn't matter to me how many or how few of our admins are also bureaucrats. Until someone explains to me why we might need additional bureaucrats when we already have four who are seen at least once a week, or explains why the power to apply the strict rules on this page can't be given out fairly freely, I'll have to vote neutral on all RFBs (and RFRUs for bureaucrats which don't include removing admin rights, in the unlikely event that happens.) —Silly Dan (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Dan raises a solid point, and one that I suspect many of us agree with. In my eyes, at least, users who are also bureaucrats are recognized leaders of both the community and the administration. Not that they are "infallible" in any way/shape/form, but simply that the community/administration looks up to them and their efforts, and that through their dedication to the site, they have achieved a level of leadership and recognition that they might not have always possessed as an administrator. Since I became an administrator of Wookieepedia, I've always looked up to those who have been elected bueraucrats—simply because, again in my opinion, they've done their best to exemplify what it means to be a leader. That being said, we have had some bumps along the road with past bureaucrats (like Dan has linked to), but if the community/administration feel that a certain administrator is deserving of the bureaucrat position (regardless of the "power" they now wield) it's both an honorary and (in the case of granting user rights) slightly technical position. I feel that many users on this site already see bureaucrats in this light, but I'm really only posting this here for any users who may have questions regarding what others think about the current state of Wookieepedia's bureaucratic usergroup. Anyways, that's my two cents on your post above, Silly Dan :) I hope it gives some food for thought to those who read it. Cheers, Greyman(Paratus) 18:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Optional candidate Q&A
  1. Why do you think we need another bureaucrat?
    • It's not a question of "needing", per se. Basically, a BC is a trusted member of the community whose main responsibility (beyond admin duties) is to hand out user rights. If people trust me enough to do this, then fine. If not, that's fine, too.
  2. How do you see the difference between an admin and a bureaucrat?
    • All BCs differ from admins is the fact that BCs make new admins and other BCs. I don't really see a BC as having any more authority over contributors or even other admins.
  3. What will you use your new status for if your nomination succeeds?
    • Er...making new BCs and admins? Other than that, I wouldn't really have a "status". I suppose I could be a community leader, but I was (kind of) doing that before anyway.
  4. How many admins do you think we need?
    • I don't see it as a set number; if someone thinks someone else is worthy and that person meets the RFA reqs, then they can go ahead and nom them. The community can decide if they agree with the nom or not.
  5. How many bureaucrats do you think we need?
    • Again, I don't really see it as a set number. Now I'm not saying we should have 31 BCs, but if the admin nomming his (or her!) peer feels that person would make a good BC, then they should go ahead and nom them.
  6. What should happen to admins/bureaucrat candidates who disappear for awhile without warning, leaving many questions, projects, and that sort of thing hanging?
    • Guilty as charged! :P Usually if a candidiate disappears without warning, there is most likely a reason behind it. Give them time. If they don't come back, then contact them by some other method to see if they want to come back. If another editor expresses an interest in the project, they may feel free to take it over if the originator has not returned.
Comments
  • Accepted on IRC. True, she's had a bit of a spotty attendance record, but this is someone who has been here from the beginning and still continues to be devoted to the site. She's not confrontational, is generally helpful, and has kept her finger on the pulse of the site. As a conscious observer, she thinks before she acts, refrains from bias, and gives users the benefit of the doubt. After losing one of our bureaucrats due to the absence of these qualities, I think it would be good to fill the gap with someone who embodies them. Cull Tremayne 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't believe my short service time on the Wook warrants me the liberty to place a vote for or against someone for something as substantial as Bureaucrat powers. However, I will say that I have been here since Aug 6, and I don't even know who StarNeptune is. Of course I've seen her around-albeit sparingly, in IRC-but I think that says something when I've been here for over 6 months and I've never interacted with a user. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I know I've been absent a lot lately, and since this seems to be point of contention among a lot of you, I respectfully request a withdrawal of this nomination. Cull nominated me because he thought I would be good for the job, preferring to let my past experiences speak for themselves. Until you guys decide more (or less) concrete criteria for what a BC should be now that they have no more power than admins do, and until I prove myself to you guys all over again, then this nomination has been deemed pointless. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 02:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)