Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/JuTa

 Support = 20;  Oppose = 0;  Neutral = 1 - 100% Result: Successful. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Scheduled to end 2015-06-02, towards the end of the day UTC

Links for candidate: JuTa (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Dear Commons community.

As announced at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard I'm going to nominate some users for Bureaucratship today. For all candidatures please see: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests.

Common reason for these nominations, as discussed at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, is the apparent lack of active crats to fulfill their role as described in Commons:Bureaucrats#What is a bureaucrat?.

Candidates have signalized at their talk pages to accept the nomination, and are welcome to add a personal statement and formal acceptance below. Thank you, yours --Krd 00:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - Green Giant (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Jee 01:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Preliminary  Support. Looks good at first glance. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Michael (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I'm running out of unique statements, but yet another experienced user who can lead the community well. Nick (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Stefan4 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support INeverCry 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral Trusted and active admin but not involved in bot approval process, GWT and translation stuff. Also concerns because of mass unprotections in January 2015. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support A little controversial - I like that. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Rillke^(q?) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Wieralee (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support ColonialGrid (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support No reason not to support. Trijnstel_talk 17:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Rschen7754 04:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Raymond 08:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Nihil obstat. Érico Wouters (msg) 22:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support rubin16 (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support— Racconish^📥 07:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [1][2] [3][4] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not start a wheelwar, if you think about that. If I would strongly disagree with such a desicion, I would complain on commons and/or on meta, I would take part or try to organize i.e. a poll against it, but i would not wheelwar. regards. --JuTa 20:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Krd: As nominator, please could you make the case that these people are suited to the position? (i.e. Why did you choose them in particular?) Alternately the candidates may wish to suggest reasons they are suitable to take up the position. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The candidates are those suggested at the corresponding discussion at the BNB. My though as nominator was to not express my personal preference for any of those candidates by writing individual praise essays; this may or may not have been a good idea. Anyway I without any doubt can support all of those candidates. All are active and respected Commons admins, and the group to my opinion is well spread over timezones, home wikis and interests.

  If I'm not mistaken we currently don't have recruitment processes for the advanced roles besides self nominations, so we maybe should get some more active crats first to take care of such things. If there is a better approach, please advise. Thank you. --Krd 07:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• JuTa, what would you do as a bureaucrat. How do you see your role? -- Rillke^(q?) 18:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Mainly in the technical tasks: looking after Admin- and Bot-Request and grant or deny those user rights based on the poll/discussion. For the Bot part I have to have a deep a look arround before start deciding anything, because I wasn't involved in those request in the past. This means i.e. reading (a lot of) archived accepted an denied requests to learn whats the base to accept or deny. I Maybe, maybe not "grow" with time in a kind of "leadership" role discussed like here, I don't know yet. regards. --JuTa 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JuTa: you also plan to work on GWT and TA requests on BN? --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if I notice a (permanent) backlog there, I might to work in this as well. regards --JuTa 19:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, good luck with your crat request. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]