The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it.

Two crats have approved. -DJSasso (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enfcer (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

RfB of Enfcer
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted blocks · protects · deletes · moves · rights
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.
There are 17 administrators, and 5 bureaucrats (29%).

End date: 00:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been an active Administrator here on Simple for over 3 years, and while the need for crats are no longer needed as much since the renaming rights are now a global function. We have lost 3 crats since I have been an Administrator here, and now down to only 3 remaining crats and no other editors have come forward to replace those who have stepped down from this position. Crats remaining duties to approve Bot's I will admit will be my weakest part. I have a limited knowledge of basic programming and will at least be able to vet the bots, although that is not needed much here, as we do not get a lot of bot requests. The other main function of crats, is to promote Admin's after successful RfA or remove upon a successful de-sysop or request to relinquish those rights. I believe my closing of RfD's show that I can use sound judgement or rationales in closing those requests, as this same judgment is required when closing and promoting Admin's and other Crat's.

Self-Nomination: -- Enfcer (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support - Having taken some time to review Enfcer's recent edits and closes, I believe they show the qualities for a bureaucrat and would be an asset to the project. I am especially impressed with Enfcer's response to an emotive thread on AN, which shows their level-headedness and ability to provide a comment which is not only detailed but is not inflammatory to the situation -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 07:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - I agree with TNT's assessment. Chrissymad (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - an excellent track record as an editor and administrator. --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support — per above comments. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - Enfcer would make an excellent bureaucrat! Angela Maureen (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Active and clueful. Also agree with There'sNoTime above. -Mh7kJ (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I might as well signal my support even though people started voting already. I would remind people that we don't actually vote for 'crat unless a 'crat has an objection. So if another crat comes along and supports this can be closed as promoted as we will have the two crats needed to promote. -DJSasso (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Ooops! Either way, looks rather like the community has gotten behind Enfcer :) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   @Chenzw and Eptalon: to make sure they're aware, since there are only two other 'crats here. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   No worries, not sure how many editors that have commented were even around the last time we bumped someone up to crat. I think its been 3 years. We rarely have to use crat powers here. -DJSasso (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I hear you. I'm a crat at Ladino Wikipedia. And if weren't for the fact I deflagged about a dozen old iw-link bots, I'd never have used crat powers there at all. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support - I was gonna write a comment about how tpa access shouldn't be revoked for IPs etc etc etc however looking at their logs this is rarely done (and I assume when TPA access is revoked it's done for a good reason) so I see no valid reasons to oppose at all, We need more crats and they are clueful as well as flexible when it comes to vandals etc so I think they'd be a NETPOSITIVE to the project, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support — per above comments. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support — I've seen this user doing lots of helpful stuff, and I think he'll do even greater work as an bureaucrat.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - ...and that makes this the second bureaucrat endorsement necessary for fast-tracking of this request! Chenzw  Talk  09:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 12:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I oppose this request for bureuacratship manily because of the block log of the user requesting rights. The user appears to have a tendency to block accounts/IP's without talk page access ("cannot change own talk page") just because the user is a suspected LTA or is a vandal who abused talk page access with a previous block (for example, [1] [2] [3]). Additionally, the user has sometimes left a standard block template on the talk page of a user whose access has been revoked, which includes instructions for using the ((unblock)) template (for example, [4] [5]), and this is very deceptive. Furthermore, there has been one case where the user blocked without talk page access, and didn't even leave any talk page notice for the user (for example, [6]), and this to me is an even bigger no-no than blocking without talk page access before abuse occurs under the current block. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 20:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering you've been blocked elsewhere for socking, this is kind of ironic. Enfcer has shown a great deal of fairness with vandals and disruption and he will make a great crat. Chrissymad (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  (change conflict)  That's just standard blocking procedure for LTAs. Leaving a block template on an LTAs page is hardly necessary (so the fact it points to ((unblock)) is moot). Having just had (another) look through your block reasoning on enwp (where I'm an admin), I think you're just here to be disruptive so I would strongly advise the closing 'crat to discount this !vote -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[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.