Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkusership/Djsasso
Bureaucrat note: For this request to pass, it requires 70%-80% support in pro/con voting with at least 25-30 editors' approval. Jon@talk:~$ 12:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Crat chat
[change source]I have placed the request on hold to discuss a couple of points... Currently the request will not pass [1]... but I want to know from the other crats and the candidate if the request needs extended. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 21:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I surely have a COI here, but I think there's no need to prolong this request. It's after all still quite hard to get 25 !votes at all, but it is almost impossible to get 25 supports while people are opposing. I think we currently don't have more people around who will place their !vote. This request needs 8 more !votes in support to pass. The chance for Djsasso to pass even if we decide to prolong it is very small. -Barras (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm always of the opinion that it is fine for these types of votes to extend to 3-4 weeks (or even more, god I've seen projects go 6-7 months :) though that was stretching it a bit). I would personally lean towards extending it if DJ wants too (and only if DJ wants too). James (T C) on hiatus as crat but commenting anyway, take it as you will :) 03:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- I will be ok with whatever people decide. I was running because people asked me to, so I am not desperate for the flag so to speak so ending it won't bother me at all. I have no problem with it going long either as James mentions that does happen often on other projects. I do suggest whatever action is taken it is done for mine and Peter's though should his not be at 25 when his expiry time comes up. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Friends, thank you for the comments. I've extended the closure one week, we can revisit it then. Jon@talk:~$ 21:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- DJ usually has always previously requested that RFxs of this nature be kept to the original closing date. Why are we changing it? Griffinofwales (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- All I can say is that you have prolonged it for others in the past. Would somewhat be singling me out if you strayed from that would it not? Anyways like I said, I am happy with whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, and for the reference, Djsasso's comments here clearly speak against prolonging this request. But I won't argue against Jon's decision. -Barras (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing like a late reply ;) But even mentioning "we shouldn't do it because you opposed it earlier" is silly ;). James (T C) 10:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is now after the end date. πr2 (talk • changes) 02:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- 3 Supports in 3 weeks. Close this already. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Crat chat redux I
[change source]I solicit comments from fellow crats on this closure. Currently the request meets the 70-80% in pro/con voting required by meta, but only needs a six more supports in order to close as successful. I see consensus to promote and the request meets 1/2 technical requirements of meta on this type of request. Is there any cogent objection to extending this request a full thirty days? Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 07:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are about 30 named editors, who edit SEWP regularly (a few edits a week). Of these, 23 have currently voiced their opinion. I think even if we keep this open for longer, the remaining six or seven are unlikely to cast their vote. If there are any extra votes, they will therefore be from editors of other projects, who know DJsasso form his work in these respective projects. The rules for a RFCU say that the request is to run for one week, we have extended it to two weeks. In the case of CheckUser, the request is to be posted at meta, and meta will also have their say. I do currently not know how they react if we tell them that 25 suports is hard to get; lets say for a "controversial candidate", given that the last two promotions could reach this threshold - but the candidates were less "controversial". --Eptalon (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I still don't think a prolonging of this is needed. We saw that a request can be successful at the same time. Peterdownunder got the necessary supports to pass within 3 weeks. Djsasso had the same duration as Peter's RfCU. If people haven't voted in favour or against him, there might be a reason. I doubt that there will be much more votes. We saw fairly often in the past that such requests can even pass within one week or two. Bring it to an end and don't let it go on for another 3 weeks... -Barras (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments. I've closed as unsuccessful because the request did not meet the policy requirements for checkuser. Jon@talk:~$ 17:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)