The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Successful as per new rule; two 'crats supporting, no outstanding opposes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barras (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

End date: 22:55 UTC 3 December 2009

I present to the community Barras (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) for consideration for bureaucratship. Barras has been one of our most active Administrators since gaining the tools in May of this year. During this time he has made over 130 blocks, 5870 deletions and 70 protections, and he is also a member of the Oversight team. In both his Admin and Oversight roles he has performed excellently with few if any errors to his name. I feel that he would make an excellent bureaucrat and would be a great addition to the wiki team. He is often active when others are not and is often getting stewards involved if we do not have the available users to do it ourself - this was particularly the case before Oversight was enabled. Good luck, barras! Goblin 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept this nomination after some time of thinking about it. Thank you! --Barras (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per nom Goblin 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
2. Support Barras is a great admin, and will undoubtedly make a great crat.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Why not. Razorflame 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Да - @Kate (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Barras is a good admin and Oversighter, so yeah. Why not? --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 08:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strongly oppose - He'll break the wiki. ;) --  † CR₉₀  13:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Why pretend to support him then ? ONaNcle (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   CR90 is joking; no? Pmlineditor ∞ 09:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes. @Kate (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Strong support. One of the best we have. My only worry is that sometimes he spells badly. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 20:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   IP vote discounted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry about that. Didn't realize I was offline. Signed and delivered Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah, okay then. Thanks for voting. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support per new rule and whynot. As I'm about to say below my opinion would be that he is able to be promoted without a the whole week given the new rule and enough crat supports. That being said it isn't an emergency :). Jamesofur (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. I'm not sure why Barras is running so soon after expressing his belief that we have enough bureaucrats. That said, he's clearly trustworthy and I have no reason to believe he'd misuse the extra bits. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support because the war was over long ago. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - Because you're German. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 21:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - the more the merrier - Peterdownunder (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Sure. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Sure --vector ^_^ (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#:Have a hard time supporting someone who has voted in many other peoples RfBs as us having too many. If we have too many then you shouldn't be requesting them for yourself. You can't say no to others and then expect yourself to be exempt from the same reasoning. Unless you are saying you are better than all the other people who have run for it that you have voted no on. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four months since my last oppose to this reason. I stated already (see below) that I supported NVS for cu. If you look at why I opposed JC, you'll see that this was not to numbers. Would the request had been earlier (before the discussion on ST) or after the discussion ended, I had supported. The vote there was against the "system" of discussion a change and apply for crat. He should have waited a few days. No relation to numbers there even if it looks not like this. But anyway, I understand you opinion and respect it. --Barras (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I thought you constantly said that there's already enough; I think once you also firmly said you'd never run for that reason. I have respect for you, but I'm not sure about people who go against their own word. -- Mentifisto 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been one to believe there can never be too many admins or crats, but yes, I am interested in to why you believe there are enough already, and then decide to accept. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there are enough crats currently. That is still my own concern. The other thing I'm worried about was this. But it's dropped and so the idea is dropped. The reason for running for cratship here is that I'm a lot online (on IRC) and I'm often online even if I do not edit. We don't have a real need for an other crat. I can handle requests very quick because I'm very often online and this is the reason why I accpted this nom. --Barras (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are enough why should we support you, and what makes you better than the previous candidates you thought weren't needed? I can only be direct because this seems like a double standard. -- Mentifisto 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Because I can help with the tools and will not harm the project. 2) Nothing makes me better then others. (See Fr33kman's NonvacalScream's RfC and my support there and the reason for my oppose on JC's RfB) --Barras (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did happen to the admins->crats proposal? It just sort of died, even though there was clear agreement on it. Majorly talk 18:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No changes in the section, no one closed the proposal and made it a rule. The section was archived and forgotten. Looks to me like no one cared anymore about it. I still think the proposal is the better idea. If no one takes care of it, it can't work. --Barras (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall make it a rule then. It's still valid just because no one got round to it. Majorly talk 18:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And done. This request is now unnecessary. Majorly talk 18:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the candidate needs supports from two bureaucrats to pass. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though, as one crat's opposed (and I guess his opinion is valid) he should go through with the normal process. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 20:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my oppose if we have implemented the time based promos. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<<--- I'd say with the implementation of the time based promos he's basically gotten enough support and we should be able to go ahead :) Jamesofur (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well he does actually require two 'crats to say they support him per the policy. None have made a comment and due to my previous comment I myself am staying out of it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look now at the new policy change. It says i"f valid objections are given, the user must go through a normal request (like for adminship)." Not sure what happens if no crat takes part. The policy needs to be clarified here. Only Djsasso objected and no other supported (crat). So I think the normal way is then used? --Barras (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that if no 'crats participate at all, the RfB is processed the usual way. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't get two crats to say yes then you shouldn't be running to be honest. (not that this is the case for you as I am sure you can). -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, your right I for some reason read the list as two crats had already said yes (looks like only one, JC). Jamesofur (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just returned this week, I don't think I should vote. --  Da Punk '95  talk  09:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.