Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Ed Poor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ed Poor

[edit]

I'd like to be a bureaucrat. I am a developer and used to be just about the only one who did sysop promotion. I think I'm good enough at detecting consensus to be trusted with the "promote" button. --Uncle Ed 18:13, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I think Ed has established a reputation for himself as being very fair. →Raul654 18:21, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support; long-time admin I trust. --Delirium 22:39, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support... ugen64 04:13, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC) (I changed the tally, is that what I'm supposed to do?)
  • Support. We trust Ed enough to give him access to the code; certainly we can trust him with bureaucrat status. I'm even more convinced of this than I was earlier after reading this discussion. Metasquares 19:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Decumanus 22:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. If Ed already has access to the database it makes sense to formalise the rights that he already effectively has. He could create sysops any time he likes (not that I think he has done this) but it can only be a good thing if his sysop-creation rights are exercised in a transparent way. That way we can all keep an eye on what he's up to. ;-) -- ChrisO 09:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, a formality really. Fuzheado 11:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I trust Ed more than any other Wikipedian. --cprompt 18:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Support. Nico 20:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 172 01:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. On paper we should be hate each other but Ed isn't actually hateable. He has a great deal of self reflection which is commendable. If he does something rash I know he will regret it and beat himself up over it. Secretlondon 17:49, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Anthony DiPierro 18:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hopefully we will get a chance to elect bureaucrats in future. Warofdreams 18:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The decisions of a bureaucrat will be transparent anyway -- if they don't promote someone who is obviously supported, there will be unrest. :-) I say that as a general argument: certainly I trust Ed's judgment even if it was not transparent. Jwrosenzweig 18:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ed is a real good guy and excellent Wikipedian that is able to admit when he is wrong. I don't think that he will promote any users that should not be. --mav 23:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. Danny 02:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Jiang
  • Support. jengod 01:05, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I commend Ed for taking the initiative to make bureaucrat status subject to a vote. However, it's a little confusing to see it listed as a request for adminship. We either need a separate section for this, or a separate page. --Michael Snow 01:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree strongly. As I've said three times in the last hour, Wikipedia already has a lot of pages that require maintenence, and the last thing we need is another. There are going to be very, very few requests for beuracratic status, so (for the few we do get) this page would suit us just fine. →Raul654 01:16, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: as a Developer, I could promote myself with a SET user_rights = "bureaucrat" query, but I'm not going to do that. I ain't no stinkin' unilateralist, man! I go with the flow, seeking that perfect balance between wave and board so eloquently promoted by my sock puppet, er, alter ego, "Surfer Dude". --Uncle Ed 19:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Refusing to act? Spoken like a true bureaucrat. Refusing to act unilaterally. Spoken like a true Wikipedia bureaucrat. Support, and thank you Ed for taking this task on board, alongside the mailing list administration and the tireless article mediation you've done for so well for a long time now. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, that query would make you only a bureaucrat, which is probably not what you want. Pakaran. 10:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, how do we know that if he runs the promomtion query granting him those powers, that he won't abuse his new powers? Perhaps the reason he is asking to be invited to run the query to grant himself the powers is the same reason vampires need to be invited to enter a house (which I however never quite understood)... Ok, just joking. Support. Κσυπ Cyp   14:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I really respect Ed for holding some strong, minority points of view without getting in revert wars over them, not to mention for managing to calm down Gdansk. Pakaran. 14:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I would support Ed Poor personally, but since I am a member of the Mediation Committee, count me as neutral. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 14:54, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Infrogmation 15:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Arwel 18:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. theresa knott 20:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support RickK 04:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Ams80 20:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Kingturtle 00:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. And this request is really unnecessary. I made myself a bureaucrat as soon as that flag became available. If Ed was previously trusted to make sysops, I don't see why he shouldn't be trusted now. Bureaucrats cannot desysop users, anyway, so the worst "unilateral action" Ed can take is make someone a sysop who shouldn't be. Big whoop.—Eloquence 02:10, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is a big whoop, especially given the recent troubles Wikipedia has had with inappropriate sysop behavior. -- Seth Ilys 18:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I likewise find such mirthful scoffings at the misconduct of ones peers, and dismisal of the complaints of ones subordinates to be yet another sign of the wiki's rapid decent into oligarchy. Sam Spade 20:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • Oppose. Just days ago he asked to be desysopped, and I'm still waiting for that. --Wik 18:22, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wik, assuming you mean that seriously, I think I should tell you that (as best I can tell) Ed was being sarcastic about the desysopping. →Raul654 23:44, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • Probably, but he should have been serious. He violated the rules, and should be temporarily desysopped for it. --Wik 23:47, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have to oppose. This user has assumed the worst about me (going so far as to publically suggest I am a banned user) and has variously failed to strike me as someone with an astute appraisel of others. Sam Spade 18:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No, I just suspected you were a "sock puppet". (If you're Jack Lynch, then I'm right.) If I thought you were using a sock puppet to evade a ban, I would have contacted Brion or Tim privately.
      • Actually, you accused me of perhaps being EoT [1]. I notice it is hard to keep track of your mistaken allegations, but this one at least will be mentioned here. Your insinuation that I might utilize a sock puppet is similarilly a poor example of your assesment of charector. The multiple accusations against me have caused me to develop a less than favorable opinion of you (one that incidentilly I am striving to shed, as I DO see you as a good admin.) I just don't think this is the right timing nor circumstance for a promotion. Sam Spade 02:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Ed, this user was previously User:JackLynch. He asked to have his username changed, and Tim did so. The confusion results from the fact that Jack/Sam doesn't like other people pointing out that User:JackLynch is now User:Sam Spade, as I'm now doing. - snoyes 22:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks, kinda :p Sam Spade 02:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


15 to 2 is a good as you could hope with a group that large. Consensus ≠ unanimous. I say make yourself a bureaucrat. →Raul654 20:20, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support/Oppose, depending. I'm afraid I agree with some of what Sam/Jack said, that Ed is a hasty and judgmental appraiser of behavior. I also agree that he is good spirited. To the extent people express their feelings clearly, and to the extent the exact degree of concensus necessary for promotion to syshophood is clear, then I trust that Ed knows how to count, is honest, and will respect what he perceives to be the wishes of the community. But I don't consider him either an astute judge of nuances or a master of restraint. I'd like to know better what the job entails before I either support or oppose.168...|...Talk 20:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Your description of my character is spot-on, Mr. 24x7! I admit to having been hasty, judgmental and no master of restraint. I'm hoping my awareness of these character flaws will enable me to keep them in check. I did list myself at [[2]], in part because I realized I had crossed a line with Wik; I really want this to be a community where we all work together harmoniously. --Uncle Ed 20:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the unilateral ban of Wik less than 7 days before this and the writing above saying he isn't a unilateralist, suggesting a lack of recognition of his own tendency to act in haste. Also because he continues to advocate unilateral banning on the mailing list. Ed, please at least be consistent in your opposition to unilateralism, through your deeds as well as your words in all places, not just this page. Once you are, I'll support this. Until then, I don't think you're recognising how you really act. Jamesday 01:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Although it's not specifically stated, I believe that we should wait the full week for bureaucrat nominations, just as with adminship -- especially when someone is self-nominated. I oppose until 18:13 UTC on 25 February 2004, at which time my vote becomes support. -- Seth Ilys 00:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It is specifically stated. 7 days. Kingturtle 00:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's specifically stated for adminship, not bureaucratship. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but we really should do things properly. My vote was specifically in response to Raul's comment suggesting Ed go ahead and give himself the status before the vote was concluded. The community should probably also vote on Eloquence's bureaucratship. - Seth Ilys 18:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons as Sam Spade, Wik and Jamesday; Ed has shown himself to be a hasty judge of character, and has acted without the consensus of the Wikipedia. I also have to disagree with Eloquence, in that a rogue Admin can do a lot of damage to Wikipedia's content and reputation. The democratic election of admins and bureaucrats on Wikipedia is not something to be taken lightly. - DropDeadGorgias 19:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ed and Erik are developers. There is no need to vote on either of them. They can make sysops at will by directly writing the database. All a bureaucrat flag does is enable them to do it through a proper interface rather than having to mess around with memcached as they used to have to do. Opposing it makes no sense. These people already the ability to do these things. What is there to vote on? Angela. 21:30, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • I suppose you have to go through all of this paperwork and meaningless arguments to prove that you're up for the "bureaucracy". I suppose my main complaint with this nomination discussion was the quick dismissal of a democratic solution. I agree with you that this discusison is a farce though- I assume that Ed will merely take Eloquence's route out. - DropDeadGorgias 22:33, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • No, I won't. I'm quite serious about what Jimbo said (and what Wik and others also want): that admins should not be unilateralists. I can ssh my way into the database and do anything, but I won't. We ALL should follow an orderly, agreed-upon process. --Uncle Ed 13:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Between 4 and 8 voters felt this vote was unnecessary, since (like Eloquence) I could simply have made myself a bureaucrat. But upon reflection I decided that there has been too much unilateral action around here. This community should adopt clear and reasonable rules, which we all follow (including me!) --Uncle Ed 15:00, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for all your support, everybody. And to the 4 who oppose, I promise I will merit your trust, too. At this point, some developer other than me should certify the results of the tally and take any warranted action. --Uncle Ed 17:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 28 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral -- Tally ends on 18:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Ed_Poor&oldid=309719830"