Bureaucrat nominations

Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status

In an unprecedented coincidence, seven administrators of Wikipedia requested promotion to bureaucrat status last week. As of press time, six of seven candidacies remained open for comment. The candidacies were:

The most recent addition to the roster of bureaucrats was Cecropia, who returned on 17 May 2007 after relinquishing his status in April 2006.[1] The community has not approved any new bureaucrats after Redux was promoted on 12 June 2006, thirteen months ago.[2]

Why now?

From January through June 2007, there were 11 unsuccessful requests for bureaucratship by nine different candidates - an average of two per month. What caused seven users to request bureaucratship within the same week?

One major motivator has been the persistent backlog at Wikipedia:Changing usernames. Although there are currently 22 bureaucrats,[3] only two of them - Cecropia and Secretlondon - have performed about 90% of the last 500 username changes.[4] Some requests have waited more than a week for one of these two bureaucrats to address them.

In his nomination statement, Deskana observed, "Personally, I feel Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats. Most of the bureaucrat stuff is done by Cecropia (who might I add, was only recently re-elected as a bureaucrat), and there is a backlog at WP:CHU."

Results

The requests are still running as of publication. The Signpost will report the final results next week.

References

  1. ^ Cecropia's last bureaucrat action before the leave of absence was on 31 March 2006, according to the user rights log.
  2. ^ See Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies.
  3. ^ See the list at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats.
  4. ^ See the user rename log.


+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

Cecropia only started doing them as I left them for a week. It's "interesting" that he is seen as the person doing them all. I left them for a week as I was sick to death of spending hours doing vanity renaming. They go in fashions - people want to be renamed to single letter names as it's cool, then someone decided that non-latin alphabet names are cool.. Does this benefit the encylopedia? It's a total waste of someone's time - we are far too liberal with renaming. No-one suffers from not being renamed to something they've decided is cleverer. I've refused to do the non Latin renaming as I can see no benefit to the encylopedia and serious drawbacks. I suspect the vain are looking for more compliant 'crats. Secretlondon 10:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secretlondon, I don't think your comment here is going to get much attention. Very few people, if any, are going to have this page watchlisted (the only reason I saw your note is because I had fixed a couple of typos in the article, and I have the "automatically watchlist any page you edit" setting checked). If this is a concern of yours, I think you need to raise it in a different venue (and my apologies for saying so because I am sure you already have). Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]





       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0