LEGO Message Boards Wiki:Requests for Rights/Administrator

This is LMBW's requests for administrator page. If you wish to request administrator rights, please read this page first, and make sure you fulfill the requirements listed here.

To file a request, press the button below and fill out the requested field(s).

Requests made on this page made are a vote, meaning that if they achieve at least 25 supporting votes and 75% support out of the total supports and opposes, then their request will be closed as successful. Users voting on a request must give a valid reason for their support or oppose. Most requests last for around a week, unless there is clear consensus either way after a short period of time.

If a user has requested administrator rights before, add  to the end of the topic header. If a request for administrator fails, the user who requested the rights must wait 8 weeks before requesting them again. For users with multiple requests, add the respective number of the request. It is also considered good practice to link to previous requests for rights when nominating a user.

Archived requests can be found here.

=Current requests=

Veralann (4)
Hi, I'm Veralann, and I'm running for administrator for several reasons. Reason one is that I am a very active and dedicated member of the wiki, and can be found on chat daily. Reason two is I have quite a bit of technical expertise, which the current administration team lacks. Finally, I believe I am mostly liked by the community, however I'm always open to constructive criticism. I believe I can bring some variety to the wiki's administration team, and clean up the technical aspect of the wiki in the process. Thank you for your time. --~ Vera ( Message me ) 02:53, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I don't think you deserved to be demoted. You would make a fantastic admin. ~ Marsh
 * 2) Support for obvious reasons. 02:56, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) You got demoted for performing a public service Avatar2260_1.jpeg Dubba Booey (talk) 03:37, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) the admins demoted you even though quite literally 99% of the community was against the demotion -slice
 * 5) This demotion was a farce. I support for the same reason as my prior support. 06:21, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Per above. QuantumHedgehog • Message Me • Contributions • 
 * 7) Respectable, intelligent, and unfairly demoted. -Dr. Satl, M.D.
 * 8) Per all above, clearly the community wanted him to stay, he was willing to not have access to the "admin site" which is a mature thing to at least suggest. Unfairly demoted so supporting. ~ Roddy
 * 9) You shouldn't have been demoted in the first place and per above. LegoWebby101
 * 10) This drama and power abuse has to stop. This vote shouldn't even exist, and I hope the admins will stop breaking their own rules with this vote. Of course I support, especially since Vera showed that he could handle a very unfair situation. Per above also. Yada   Dark   http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/picsou/fr/images/d/db/Emoticon_Picsou.gif   http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/sedali/images/f/fd/Vanguard.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/20?cb=20160826204149  12:14, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) you /could/ give him admin rights without giving him access to the site. Lilac Neko (talk) 17:08, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, see my last reasons. --Navy Bravey with some Gravey (talk) 21:39, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) unfair demotion in my eyes, per everyone else ~maj
 * 2) You were demoted without sound evidence. ~Bubsey

Neutral

 * 1) idk what to think but running again so soon despite being advised not to, as well as no mention whatsoever of the events surrounding this in the OP isn't helping at all, quite the contrary ~ eoe Moved to Oppose
 * 2)  𝕃𝕆ℕ𝔼𝕐 𝕄𝕔𝕃𝕆ℕ𝔼𝔽𝔸ℂ𝔼
 * 3) Sam
 * 4) I saw him running and rushed to support. But then I read what Ale and Alpha wrote and rushed to oppose. Now I realize I'm way, way out of the loop and I can't make a proper judgment on all of this with the knowledge I have. I'm not ignoring this, but I need to look around a lot more before I can make the right vote here.
 * 5) Totally out of the loop here, but I agree with Ale—I feel you need to wait a bit, let it all cool down.  get off my lawn  »  then we'll talk  03:07, March 22, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Honestly... waiting would have been beneficial. One of the admins who voted to keep the demotion said that perhaps you could run again "in a few weeks". Now just because there's no cooldown after demotions you're running again. Time and again I told you to have "patience". For the real oppose reason: Can't be trusted with the admin site as he thought about leaking information from it, including sensitive information. Assumed that there would be no admin policy on secrecy (told me in PM) instead of keeping an open mind, and therefore thought he could do what he wanted with admin site information (despite him hating it when others wrongly assume things). And despite thinking there was no admin policy, he said "even if I did if I were to leak it and an admin joined here I'd be screwed", indicating that he knew there would have been consequences. You really should have waited a few months before running again. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless(Talk to me) 09:28, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) to be clear. i don't really have an opinion on the original demotion. i see the justification for it by the admin team and i see the justification against it (and for your restoration to admin) from others. but then there's this: Assumed that there would be no admin policy on secrecy (told me in PM) instead of keeping an open mind, and therefore thought he could do what he wanted with admin site information (despite him hating it when others wrongly assume things). regardless of my stance on the original demotion there's literally no justification for this at all. i see two options to explain why you would have said that: first, you (somehow??) genuinely were not aware of this. i don't see how any user lacking some of the most obvious knowledge about how this wiki's administration works, period, should possibly be welcomed into it. literally one of the first things you should learn about the admin team (or even assume coming into the community as it's not like this is non-standard practice) is that the secret off-wiki admin site is a place where secret things are secretly discussed and secrets are generally not shared. the idea that you could even be considered for admin without an understanding of such basic knowledge is ludicrous. the second case: you were lying about it to try to cover yourself for the comments that got you demoted in the first place. in that case (which i sincerely hope is the truth, because the alternative is just depressing) lying (badly) through your teeth (to someone who ought to be your colleague) in order to justify why you should be restored to power is awful and, at the very least, gives the impression you don't really want admin for the good of the wiki, you just want admin so you don't come off looking like an idiot because you got kicked off right as you got in. which is reasonable, but at least try to maintain some dignity rather than stooping low enough as to lie like that about it? there are far better ways to show you're legitimately interested in being an admin, if that is in fact the case. regardless, i feel an adequate understanding of either scenario (these are real scenarios here of course, not hypothetical) would lead to an oppose from anyone thinking about this with their heads rather than their "i like hype" or "i don't like the admins" organ (and yes i am talking to the (currently) 10 supports who evidently failed to read/willfully ignored ale's oppose). ~ eoe
 * 3) per eoe. It's too soon and it seemed too much like s cover-up when confronted. This was not a HGTTG situation where the rules were posted in a dark locked basement of city hall. You indicated knowledge of the rules in the screenshotted conversation but then reversed that and claimed you didn't know when later asked about them? I'm sorry, it just seems too analogous to a child trying to say they didn't eat the cookie while still having crumbs on their cheek. - EED
 * 4) Im sorry, but after the recent revelations, I can not trust you, Vera, as an admin of the wiki, certainly in the short term but possib also in the long term. To take part in off-wiki discussions on a questionable site and say you are contemplating giving secret, admin related material to certain users is quite frankly, bang out of order. Also, regarding the above supports - how can you have an admin with limited access to admin related tools? It's like having a car but not allowed to use the steering wheel! Don't get me wrong, I had nothing against Vera running the first few times, I think I supported him in each case, but sadly, I can't this time. MC1
 * 5) Per above. Monocle Man   ( wall  •  contribs ) 23:27, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * I don't get it. Was he advised not to run so soon or told? Because that's what you guys are acting like. He has every right to run. Brick425 (talk) 13:37, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * The admins can't tell someone not to run. He's fully within his rights here, agreed. 16:26, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * Also — a note to the opposes. It's been two weeks since the demotion. The majority of the community and a few of the admins think the demotion should be overturned. Sure, he could have waited a couple more weeks (so it would be "a few weeks"), but what do you think is going to change in that time? Honest question. 16:26, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually consider the demotion to have properly happened yesterday, when we finally finished the revote. The two-week period was just "limbo". That's how I see it, anyway... Waiting a few weeks (or months) would have showed maturity and patience so that he could fully process what happened ("patience" is a regular theme I've told him about time and again in the past few months, but instead he always went against it). It would have also given us an opportunity to see his behaviour during that time and make sure he still behaved properly despite the shock and disappointment of demotion. Remember the last times we had to demote someone, the users affected suffered a turn for the worst. Better play it safe and take things easy. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless(Talk to me) 16:51, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that makes sense. From an administrative stand point, on our side of the red tape, sure. But he had to deal with being demoted for two weeks already, and there's no good reason to downplay that. If he had had the rights for that "limbo" period, it would be different. As it stands now, we've seen his behavior for the last two weeks after his demotion and he's behaved well. 17:26, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * Per this. He showed a lot of maturity when he suggested the compromise but I guess.Everyone just forgot about that. Thanks to Lilac for bringing it up. Brick425 (talk) 17:33, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was TSA who originally suggested it, then taken up by Vera. Unless Vera thought about it without looking at TSA's post. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless(Talk to me) 17:46, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * But this is different in any case. We demoted him and almost immediately after that a compromise was cooked up. There was a two-week period in which there was the possibility of him getting his rights back. We put an end to that, now he doesn't have the possibility anymore except via another RfR. He may have behaved well after the first "shock", but how about the second one? The "disappointing decision cooldown" counter has reset and we need to start judging things from yesterday, that's what I'm saying. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless(Talk to me) 17:46, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. But keep in mind, although that may be your metric, most other people are looking at those two weeks as a valuable gauge of Vera's behavior and character. I know you want to err on the side of being overly cautious, and that's fine, but don't be surprised when a lot of people disagree with you. 17:54, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * yeah that's what i've done, but it doesn't always result in a positive conclusion like you're implying it does or should (being overly cautious?), see my oppose ~ eoe
 * Was this a response to me or Alemas? I'm not sure what you mean here. 23:46, March 21, 2017 (UTC)


 * Allow me to address the various points that the people who have opposed this RFR have made.  I request that you consider my arguments.
 * First, the ideas that “waiting would have been beneficial,” and “it’s too soon.”  This makes no sense.  Hype is going to be just as skilled now as he is going to be within another two weeks.  In addition, he has already waited a few weeks after his unfair demotion.  He is breaking no rules, and he has carefully followed policy.  Really, this isn’t a point, but a flawed reason to oppose.
 * Now, to address the fact that Hype “Can't be trusted with the admin site as he thought about leaking information from it.”  He didn’t, though.  That’s the whole point of the matter.  The admins didn’t judge Hype for a rule that he broke, or even the clear intention to break a rule.  They voted on the sheer possibility that Hype could have done something wrong in the distant future.
 * To provide further details on this point, I also find it interesting that even if Hype had ultimately leaked information, he wouldn’t have been breaking any defined rule.  I know that someone will reply to this and claim that “he should have assumed” that the admin site had information that shouldn’t be shared with the LMBW community.  I find this ridiculous.  If there is no rule written out, then there is no rule that has been broken.  It’s the reason why I requested there to be a link to the banned words on chat on the chat policy page.  It seems unfair to try a person for breaking a law they didn’t know existed, even more so in the case of Hype, who did nothing.
 * Another user claims that Hype indicated knowledge of the rules in the screenshotted conversation.  This is not the case.  Hype merely discusses the possibility of this occurring, and he acknowledges that the site “may be set up” differently, implying he will investigate the possibility of there being admin-site specific rules.
 * A few users have argued that Hype will require access to the admin site to adequately perform his duties.  For what?  Many of the votes apparently require admins to wait on admins that aren’t active on either site to log in and vote on decisions.  Hype is one of the most active members of the community, and is easily accessible through chat.  According to the admins I have discussed this with, the admin site is mostly inactive anyways.
 * And lastly, it’s interesting how people seem to be treating Hype as though he has acted immaturely within the last few weeks.  If he had criticized the administrators or whined like a child, I would agree that perhaps Hype’s qualifications should be reconsidered.  Instead, he has acted incredibly respectfully, politely protesting the decision of the admins.  Additionally, Hype could have perfectly well denied the claim that the screenshots in question were truly his words, instead claiming that the user in question was attempting to assault his character.  This was not the case, as Hype has been honest, open, and well-mannered throughout this entire unjust process.  He even politely avoided the delicate issue of demotion in his request for rights, a choice that I greatly respect.  In my opinion, a long-winded criticism of the admins’ decision would have been a perfectly understandable response, but Hype has chosen the “high ground,” so to speak.
 * Ultimately, I suspect that arguments have little to do with the demotion in question, but that’s beside the point.  I simply wished to debunk the claims made by members of the community. Apologies also for the terrible formatting.  I'll be working on making this legible -Dr. Satl, M.D.


 * @third pargraph: Satl pls listen to yourself here. are you seriously suggesting that it's reasonable, understandable, or even regular for a potential/actual legitimate admin to be unaware that admin site content is secret? the notion is utterly ridiculous. and let's not kid ourselves here. he did and does know. there is no doubt about it. there is no justification for the comments he's made surrounding this. ~ eoe
 * I am listening to myself, I fear that you ignored my other points so you could reiterate the same thing again. The argument that I made is that even if he did know (an argument that can only be confirmed or denied by Hype himself), the fact of the matter is that there is no rule that specifies that the admin site content is meant to be secret.  If there is not a clearly defined rule, than ignorance is technically a perfectly valid claim.  In addition, you have not addressed the fundamental fact that Hype did nothing in the first place, thereby warranting no action to be taken on the part of the admins.  Also, I must ask.  To which "comments" are you referring?  In my opinion, the screenshots provided do not indicate the clear intention to even perform any radical actions, and Hype's mannerisms surrounding this entire affair have been excessively mild.  -Dr. Satl, M.D.