Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Raul654

Raul654
I'd like to apply to be a bureaucrat. I've been a sysop since late last year, and I think in the time I've been here, I've established myself as trustworthy. After the position of bureaucrat was created, I was the one who wrote the polls that defined what their role is, so I'm very familiar with what a bureaucrat is supposed to do. I'm applying here because Angela has said there aren't enough bureaucrats, which (given that Angela or Kingturtle do most of the promoting) I'm inclined to agree with. &rarr;Raul654 00:26, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Fredrik (talk) 00:34, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) JCarriker 01:31, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I trust Raul &#9999; Sverdrup 01:51, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Jiang 01:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) has been a very helpful member of the community
 * 5) Elf | Talk 02:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) He's all over the place on wikipedia doing all kinds of useful things and my experience with him has been good.
 * 6) Acegikmo1 02:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Angela. 02:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Burgundavia 07:01, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC) Nothing but good interactions with Raul since I arrived
 * 9) Clearly not a member of the axis of evil :) Muriel G 10:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) David Gerard 11:38, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Warofdreams 11:51, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 12:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) Definitely
 * 13) Itai 12:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I'm familiar with the user's work. Earnestly support.
 * 14) Cecropia | Talk 14:21, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) Raul is always on top of things, and that's what we need for a Bureaucrat.
 * 15) Ilyanep 14:31, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I have seen Raul do a lot of work...Totally support!
 * 16) theresa knott 14:47, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Raul's level-headed arbitration of the frequently-heated discussions on FAC has always been impressive.  - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:11, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Jwrosenzweig 18:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) "D ICK " C HENEY  19:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) &#8212;No-One Jones 19:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) OPPOSE! Mark needs to knuckle under and get on with his Ph.D Bah, does the world really need another Ph.D? Support. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 20:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) older &ne; wiser 21:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) jengod 01:29, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Of course. James F. (talk) 01:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) Raul's an excellent chap who deserves to be a bureaucrat. Support! DO'Neil 08:57, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Profoss 09:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) Of course! Raul knows his stuff.  Perfect fellow for the job. - blankfaze | &#8226;ï¿½&#8226; 09:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) 172 09:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) Merovingian &#8597; T@Lk 17:58, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 30) From my brief interaction with him, he seems clear-headed, calm, and assertive. Kevin Baas 18:38, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)
 * 31) We haven't met, but after looking over his work, he's a shoo-in. Neutrality 21:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 32) Danny 01:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 33) --GeneralPatton 16:28, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 34) Lst27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 35)   &mdash; Lady Lysine Ikinsile 07:24, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
 * 36) Gentgeen 07:54, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 37) Just noticed this. I fully support. Johnleemk | Talk 12:12, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 38) Raul's dedication deserves recognition, and I expect he'll serve well. However, I think this discussion is incomplete without one caveat: Raul too often assumes ill intent. Please avoid this pitfall as a bureaucrat. Cribcage 03:27, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 39) pir 08:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 40) --Woggly 12:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 41) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 42) Davodd 21:41, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 43) Decumanus 17:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 44) Michael Snow 00:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 45) I trust Raul with such new powers. Kingturtle 01:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 46) Guanaco 01:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 47) A true pillar of Wikipedia. - Mark 02:34, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 48) Sam [Spade] 18:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) dubious of his neutrality . Feeling much happier due to recent clarifications regarding Featured articles. I support.
 * 49) Sure. Isomorphic 04:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 50) Fuzheado | Talk 10:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) - haven't been too many 50th votes on someone, so I'm happy to be the 50th to support.

Oppose
 * 1) This application is hereby ignored. anthony (see warning)
 * 2) *What does that mean? RickK 05:25, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) **I told him one of his complaints on the FAC was frivilous and said essentially that. This is his payback. &rarr;Raul654 05:36, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) oppose because of his behaviour in regard to zionism and related pages - manipulative, dishonest and unfair person. Zw 09:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comments


 * To continue an interesting debate on Raul654's talk page, which I don't want to break into directly; I think that we should have clear ideas about what judgements a Bureaucrat should do (a lot, in my opinion), and then ask the current bureaucrats to try to follow them, or resign. If Angela, or any other bureaucrat thinks that this was not what he/she wanted to do, they can resign as bureaucrats, without anyone thinking less of them. &#9999; Sverdrup 02:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The current problem is that bureaucrats aren't even making the decision to sysop someone when they have 100% support, so trying to make them make judgements about less clear cut cases isn't likely to work. The reason I said we need more bureaucrats is that although we have 13 of them, since the start of May, only two of them have been active, meaning that in some cases nominations have been left an extra three days without any action being taken. Angela. 02:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)