Wiktionary:Bureaucrats/Past nominations

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svg This page is no longer active. It is being kept for historical interest.
No discussion is needed to revive this page; simply remove the {{inactive}} tag and bring it up to date.

As suggested by User:Kevin Rector, I would nominate User:Hippietrail, User:Polyglot and User:Paul G to be bureaucrats. But I suggest doing some kind of vote, a "one vote each" type thing, and if Ec fancies having an extra bureaucrat around, he can "promote" one of them

I accept my nomination. Thank you. — Paul G 17:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I also accept my nomination. Eclecticology was doing a fine job though. So I don't think I'll be doing a lot of assigning sysops. I also fail to see why we need 4 bureaucrats? Polyglot 13:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
It's not a matter of needing 4 bureaucrats. Clearly we don't need 4. However, Eclecticology has been missing in action for several weeks now and no one knows where he is, or if he's ever coming back. So clearly we need at least one new bureaucrat. I think a better question is why not have 4 bureaucrats? The actual function of a bureaucrat is fairly minimal, but it is one of the small ways that the community can recognize the valuable contributions of those who have been selected. Kevin Rector 13:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer to see Hippietrail or Paul or both promoted to Bureaucrat. Other things are going on in my life right now that I have to tend to (starting a small business next to a full time job). I find I'm contributing a lot less than I used to. I'll probably be back though and I still care a lot about this project, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense to be a (sleeping) bureaucrat. Polyglot 11:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I seem to be back from my Wikileave, so if it's felt that another Bureaucrat is still needed, I'll accept. One of the reasons to kind of decline was that I'm a bureaucrat on nl.wiktionary since the beginning, but I'm not all that active over there after all. I prefer to recognize and nominate worthy candidates over actually promoting them anyway... :-)
I also think Eclecticology is doing a fine job. I'm very flattered and quite surprised to see the votes for me here. I don't think we need very many bureaucrats at all but another might be helpful for times when our primary bureaucrat is away. All of the nominated candidates are very good and I would support any of them. Paul G seems very interested so I won't accept my nomination for now until it's really felt that more bureaucrats are needed. Thanks. — Hippietrail 12:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • For
  • Against
    • We don't need more bureaucrats, 24 02:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments We do need them now. Appointed 2006-07-20 — Paul G 19:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Paul G[edit]

  • Results Appointed 2005-08-02. Eclecticology 18:51:36, 2005-08-02 (UTC)


  • For
  • Against
    • We don't need more bureaucrats, 24 02:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments


Since Eclecticology has been absent for months now (with a brief interlude), and Paul has been less active for the past weeks, I'd like to nominate a third bureaucrat, and I think Dvortygirl is an excellent candidate for this position (most of you will know why). I have also asked Hippietrail whether he'd be interested, but given his past successful nomination, it might not be necessary to repeat that vote. Anyway I think both these people are the most likely candidates to do the job. — Vildricianus 10:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept, and thank you all for your confidence in me. I would add one caveat. While I intend to remain active in the community here, I presently have personal matters at home that may draw me away at any time. I do usually leave my IRC client open and check my messages regularly, but I may not do so much editing here over the next few months and may include some interruptions. —Dvortygirl 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. As nominator, of course. — Vildricianus 10:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. GerardM 11:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. And she's also often here on irc, which is really important for a bureaucrat in my opinion. Kipmaster 11:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. \Mike 11:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Indeed.
  5. Strongest support ever in the history of strongest supports ever. The Queen of Wiktionary not a bureaucrat? What a ludicrous notion. —Celestianpower háblame 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jolly good! SemperBlotto 16:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Yes please! Widsith 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. The real question is: Why did no one think of this before? --Wytukaze 17:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. job. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Connel MacKenzie 07:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Jon Harald Søby 09:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. --Dijan 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. --Pill δ 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. --Red Baron 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Yes. Andrew massyn 22:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Definitely. Jonathan Webley 21:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. This is late, but I am ashamed to have missed voting for her, so I shall now long after she was elected. - TheDaveRoss 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Hmm, I seem to have overlooked it as well. —Stephen 21:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Appointed by Paul on July 20, 2006.


As one of the most clear-headed contributors, Vild seems to be an obvious nomination. His timezone is complementary to the existing Bureaucrats. His language skills are very good. His technical grasp of the functions of the various Wikimedia software functions is excellent. I'm honored to nominate him as a Wiktionary bureaucrat. --Connel MacKenzie 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept - although surprised. — Vildricianus 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. (Nominator) --Connel MacKenzie 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jon Harald Søby 20:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Duh!
  3. Support - contingent on nominee accepting the nomination. - Amgine/talk 20:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Thogo (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Celestianpower háblame 20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Dijan 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Yes. Diplomatic skills a plus. —This unsigned comment was added by Andrew massyn (talkcontribs).
  8. Do we need more than 4? If so, I agree that Vild is the perfect choice. Widsith 16:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    If we didn't, I wouldn't have accepted. Ten hands can do more than eight, certainly if four or six of them are suddenly absent or less active for a while. With two backup pairs, they can take a more relaxed break without having to worry about backlogs or waiting users. — Vildricianus 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. ok, if he continues to be as addicted active as he is for now (he's also on irc, which is a plus). Kipmaster 18:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. —Stephen 18:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Jonathan Webley 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Certainly. \Mike 12:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. What a good idea! bd2412 T 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Jonathan Webley 14:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Appointed by Dvortygirl 04:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC). Welcome aboard.