Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/ShakataGaNai

(Bureaucrat)
has been an active positive contributor to Wikinews for over a year now. His RfA had unanimous support, and an adminship reconfirmation also had unanimous support. I think that ShakataGaNai would serve the project well in this added capacity. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * Do you accept the nomination? Cirt (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can haz cratz? (Yes, I accept) -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 04:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * , per nom. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * - why? Tools for the sake of tools. We have plenty of active Bureaucrats -- Sken   my talk 07:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Tempodivalse's RfB went overdue by several weeks, which might suggest that we do need a couple more bureaucrats. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Was a Bureaucrat actually notified about the end of the vote? I certainly wasn't :) -- Sken   my talk 14:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is like saying "Why do we need more admins?". We've also got plenty of active admins.  The problem is that we'd like to have someone active in each roll all the time, crat and admin.  On most wiki's we'd want more than one active admin at all time because there is a lot to do, wikinews not so much, but it is still a good idea. So lets take a quick look at the crats, we've got 10.   has been editing on 10 days this year,  once so far,  inactive since Oct 2008.  Not saying anything bad about those people (Those were just 3 easy people to point out), but people come and go on wiki's.  People get busy in real life, or simply get bored/tired/sick/frustrated with the wiki.  That long boring spiel being said, Skenmy feels we've got enough, that's perfectly fine.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is we use admins a lot more (for archiving / editprotected / copyvio, etc) than other projects do. We actually use the tools for our project goals, rather than them being there just for technical reasons. However, our Bureaucrats have no difference between other projects - they serve two purposes here on Wikinews - promoting users and renaming users. We have six Bureaucrats who I would consider "active" at this moment in time - plenty for a project of this size. This isn't a personal jab against you, SGN, I have every respect for you and you are a fantastic contributor to the community. I simply do not believe in giving out tools that are not needed, just because we trust in a user. Admins are sorely needed by the majority of our regular contributor base. Bureaucrats are not. -- Sken   my talk 16:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if we did need more 'crats — an argument that I don't buy — I believe we have a number of users who are better suited for this position. --SVTCobra 23:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 *   Tris   10:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * for now per all arguments above. Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * there's no reason to have a set level of bureaucrats. If you trust the user, then give them the tools. I trust him so I support. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User is able to be trusted with the tools.  hmwith τ   14:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Jcart1534 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)