LEGO Message Boards Wiki:Requests for Rights/Bureaucrat

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

To file a request, place the following code under the "current requests" header, above any existing requests.

replace this with your username
replace this with a brief paragraph about why you want to be nominated. ~

Comments


Requests made on this page made are a vote, meaning that if they achieve at least 30 supporting votes and 80% 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. At least 96 hours must pass before a request can be closed.

If a user has requested bureaucrat rights before, add  to the end of the topic header. If a request for bureaucrat fails, the user who requested the rights must wait 12 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.

Madkatmaximus
Originally when this RfR was instated I was not going to run for bureaucrat rights because I did not at the time feel I needed them, and I had just gotten off a period of inactivity and was not as active as I had previously been. I'm returning to more activity now, and I've realised that Alemas2005 is our only fully active buro, with all of the others being either semi active or inactive. I have been an admin on this site for a little over a year now, and although initial reaction to my performance was less than good, many people seem to think I perform my administrative duties reasonably well. While bureaucratic rights are not necessary to use all that often, I would use them accordingly and when needed, and I believe I could be trusted with them completely.

While my activity right now is still not the best it could be due to real life matters, I'm working on improving time management and my activity here should get better. If you are going neutral or opposing, please state where you believe I should improve, as feedback is greatly appreciated.

Support

 * 1) Madkat is a competent admin, active and swift to deal with issues when she is on. She is excellent at what she does, and we do sorely need another bureaucrat who has the best interests of the community at heart. Full support. -~π~ (talk) 22:21, October 9, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah whatever pi said. Hello, my creepies (talk) 22:22, October 9, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Per pi slizerguy
 * 4) One of our best admins, active, and reliable. definitely support.   Colonel Roy Mustang    (talk) 22:47, October 9, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Per above Lunaicus (talk) 23:26, October 9, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Of course, Kat's the best admin here IMO and I'm surprised she doesn't have bureaucrat already. And what everyone else said.
 * 7) Per the above ~ KiraNotKirac
 * 8) Per the above. ~EvilMidnightNG~ (talk) 00:53, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Per above. Legowebby101
 * 10) A good admin, and we lost a lot of bureaucrats, so that's a strong support for mad. Dark Yada (talk) 09:59, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Dediacated, smart, efficient, best human in existence, medbay will make an amazing buro. ~ Fort

Neutral

 * 1) Not at all certain yet this is the 'crat I'm looking for. —May the Force be with you, and may Darkness follow you. Oh. I'm the Doctor, by the way.
 * 2) I would support except there is this weird conflict going on, and I'd rather that the users make up with each other before butting heads at the top of the rights food chain. Lilac Neko (talk)

Oppose

 * 1) They say she's the best admin around. I'm sorry, but I'm of a different opinion.


 * Yes, she's active. Yes, she's democratic. Yes, she has views most people here agree with. But would you want to have as bureaucrat someone who blocks the PMs of another 'crat and completely ignores him in chat? I think if she gets promoted to 'crat and doesn't put off her grudges against me (which have been running for quite a while), it will cause major problems, as I wouldn't be able to communicate with her for important admin matters.


 * Furthermore, I find her reaction towards questionable comments directed at her or her views a bit too overboard and rash. More than once I had the feeling that she just wanted to get rid of the person making the comments ASAP. A 'crat should be able to deal with opposing views and comments with more thought and acceptance, and not immediately go for the "get rid of him/her" route.


 * Moreover, I find some of her own comments in chat a bit on the questionable side (lots of little things that I can't list but add up to one problem and really bug me), not something I'd really want in a 'crat.


 * Last but not least, she just doesn't seem committed enough to the admin side of the Wiki. Countless times I've linked her threads from admin chat, expecting a quick reply, and many times she didn't bother doing it (FYI, I link stuff to Jude, and he replies immediately, despite him not being the most active either). I'm still waiting on a reply she said she'd write up over a week ago, for example. And let's face it, if you look at her contributions, she rarely ever does admin stuff. All she ever does is log chat.


 * Before you say I should think about the Wiki's shortage of 'crats: I do, it's just that I'd rather have Rio in the position. Too bad he doesn't want to run. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless(Talk to me) 14:52, October 10, 2015 (UTC)


 * Alemas, I blocked your PM because you completely betrayed trust and twisted something me and ZX said to fit your view of it, and due to that I no longer have any desire to converse with you on admin matters nor do I have any trust remaining in you. ZX resigned over it and I nearly did the same, but decided to go this route instead. I don't hold a grudge against you. I never have and I never will, grudges are silly wastes of time that I wouldn't bring myself down to, especially over something as trivial as administrative issues on a website. If you wish to communicate with me on admin matters I should be able to feel I can trust you completely, and I do not.


 * Generally, any questionable comments that have been aimed at me in the past were not "questionable" by any means but direct personal attacks, and most people will side with me on this. I have stated multiple times that I do not care if someone holds different beliefs than me if they are respectable about it, and I try to live by that. I've never gone for the "git rid of them" approach ever, unless bringing up people sayig nasty things for discussion somehow qualifies as that to you.


 * Define "questionable" please, because I'm not sure what this is talking about exactly.


 * Alemas, I stated in the OP that I was having activity issues and that I'm currently working on returning to full activity - it has nothing to do with my being commited. I am not always able to reply immediately because sometimes I need time to think about what I'm going to say, add to that the fact that the admin site only works on mobile for me so posting there is hard enough as it is. I never replied to that because I had already posted my opinion in that thread, and I did not need to restate it. I'm not completely sure how my contributions are relevant, as I do what I can when I can, and oftentimes I will leave chat up when I'm AFK, thus the large amount of chat log edits. It's not like at the current moment there is a particularly large amount of admin work to be done, but when I see something that needs to be done I try my best to do it.


 * As I've already said to Spider, what I did was borne out of a misunderstanding. You both agreed with me that I could "decide" yesterday. Now Spider said that he thought that meant that I would have to talk to you again yesterday, but instead I thought I could have deciding power on the matter at hand. Plus, you put me under so much pressure to reach a decision as quickly as possible that I thought I had to act fast, like, to decide on what to do yesterday. And with Gogs's activity, I couldn't wait around for you two again. And let's not forget that I never agreed to not do what you thought was unnecessary. And please tell me how you think you can manage the Wiki while ignoring a bureaucrat completely. That simply doesn't work. And also please tell me why you kept ignoring me beforehand.


 * I don't know, I don't want to be too pretentious, but maybe you should absorb the impact of these "personal attacks" a bit more so that you don't go in immediately for the "get rid of them" approach? It's just that you seem so committed, so focused, so total on getting rid of people attacking you or your views, that you don't seem to think it through enough. It's an impression I've had more than once.


 * I'm going through chat logs... Here: "[08:20]  and its 4:20 this is a sign". 4:20 jokes? I haven't seen a single 'crat do one. "[09:42]  alternatively, I could run for buro so we could have a good one". Implying the ones we have aren't good enough, thanks a lot. "[09:47]  i just remembered we still have a bottle of vodka in there

[09:47]  for "cooking" [09:47]  (yup) [09:47]  (yup) (yup) (yup) (yup) ". Ok, seriously? There's also a part from 09:49 where you are just... ugh. Rio as well, go figure... And this is all from yesterday. Just from yesterday.


 * But you did say you would post in it again. I remember that quite clearly, and you didn't even bother to say that you wouldn't have replied later. I linked it to you again, and you simply ignored me. A reason why you didn't want to reply would have been better. "particularly large amount of admin work to be done": Well, when I'm away, you could update the votes, check the emote votes, and candidates for deletion. Not having a "particularly large amount of admin work" isn't an excuse for not doing anything. And looking at your contributions, I struggle to see what you've done of note... Only chat logs and votes. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless(Talk to me) 15:48, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * We never put you under any kind of pressure whatsoever. We didn't tell you had to do anything about it soon, nor did we imply it. If you took it that way, that is not our fault - but we never pressured you to do absolutely anything, and we made it clear that you still obviously had the right to your own opinion. I didn't want to start drama about this by letting it get out of control and that's exactly what's already happening.


 * It is not necessary that I speak with you on many matters at all, so I don't think this is a problem. And I did not ignore you beforehand except for your constant pushing me to comment on that admin thread - which I had already done.


 * Alemas, I've already stated that I've never had this position on anyone. I don't want to get rid of anyone opposing my views - that would be ridiculous, immature, and flat out impossible. The only time I have called certain people into question was when they were behaving way out of line and they needed to be dealt with, so I'm not sure why exactly you're getting this impression.


 * Okay I'm going to be blunt, just because you've never seen a bureaucrat make certain jokes does not mean they're forbidden or somehow bad. That is absoultely ridiculous. There are a lot of harmless jokes I haven't seen crats make; that doesn't mean any one of them are somehow taboo. The "good one" comment was very obvious hyperbole, we have plenty of good crats that are better than I ever would be and I won't undermine them. And that was a mild alcohol joke. So what? You've made jokes about being drunk before and they are completely harmless. You are making a big deal out of nothing. And the banter between me and Rio was silly screwing around. You're making it sound like bureaucrats have to be 100% serious all the time. I'm not saying they should treat everything lightheartedly, they most certainly should not and I know how to be serious when I need to be. But being serious all the time is not a requirement and it never has been.


 * Ale, I just said that so you would stop telling me to post in it. I didn't mean it as a lie, I just didn't think it was something I needed to handle completely seriously. If I did, I would have told you up front that I didn't need to restate what I already said.


 * I won't accuse you of making problems out of nothing again, but I really do not get why you're going at this. I do check the votes to see if they need updating, and every time I do they're fully updated already. I can't work 24/7 whenever you aren't around. I just so happen to check them when you apparently already have. Spidey had been handling candidates for deletion lately so I didn't always check that as he seemed to be taking care of it. I'm not using that as an excuse, I'm saying it's the reason my activity as of late appears uneventful. And to be honest, yours isn't particularly more busy on contribs, just less chat log edits. You're making it sound like an admin has to be working 24/7 on everything there is to do - I'm not ignoring admin duties, I'm doing what I can, and at this moment in time that is not a lot of work. I really do not get why you're going on about this.


 * Nope, don't agree here, sorry. I have a chat log of the conversation we had, and you (and Spider) made the situation sound as if it had to be dealt with ASAP. Many times. You (and Spider) worded things to make them sound as if I had little time, otherwise the Wiki would have suffered consequences. And to be honest, the only drama here is being caused by us... Oh, and don't forget that we had a policy that could have solved the whole issue very quietly.


 * Well, I'll just be forced to relay matters through another admin, then to you, I guess. Which isn't a very efficient way of working "together", so to speak. Oh, BTW, the aforementioned policy (which is an official policy, might I add) also mentions that "One of the most important things administrators should do is communicate. This includes communicating with the other administrators and communicating with the community."


 * "I don't want to get rid of anyone opposing my views - that would be ridiculous, immature, and flat out impossible". I wouldn't say "flat out impossible". It nearly happened with one guy.


 * I don't want 'crats to be 100% serious all the time. I'd like for them to be 100% civil all the time. Civil means behaving... "like a sir", so to speak. Which means that you can have a sense of humour, just not anything too extreme or weird. Yes, you'll mention my "your mum" jokes; but for me, I think, they are the only example of my "uncivil" sense of humour. You have a wider and more varied "palette". And I seriously doubt that "good one" comment was hyperbole, because given the events that happened yesterday, you could have seriously doubted the abilities of the active 'crats, especially mine.


 * Ok, sorry, but trying to fool me like that... *Sigh* You should have known that I always follow up on things. You know me better than that...


 * I don't expect admins to work 24/7 either, I just expect them to check up on votes, emote votes, and possibly candidates for deletion at least when they go online. And if they need updating, update them. That's what I always do, anyway. Doesn't take long (especially if not a lot of votes happened) either. It's the little things that matter. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless(Talk to me) 17:42, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

2. Fine admin these days (as far as I know :P), but not in favor of Bureaucrat. I believe we only need a couple Buros at a time, and I'd really like Rio in that position as he is pretty much one of the best Admins due to his ability to understand situations, not take sides, and logically consider various strategies. Sure, no one is perfect, but I think Rio is the best overall candidate for the next Buro. #rioforburo
 * Only problem is that Rio has stated he does not wnat buro, but otherwise fair enough.

3. I view Mad as a friend, but I also don't see why she would need Bureaucrat status, or anyone else for that matter. With Alemas still around, promotions can be given when needed-and with everyone seemingly a Chat Moderator already, that isn't often. Bureaucrat status literally gives access to a page where you can click on checkmark boxes to give and take away Rights, but Bureaucrats can't remove Bureaucrat Rights when needed. I made the mistake of promoting too many Bureaucrats on a Wiki once, so I'm very cautious about voting new Bureaucrats in on any Wiki. I'm so sorry to oppose you Made, and I hope you understand that this oppose isn't because of anything you've done.
 * I do, and I don't take opposes personally, that's fine.

4. I can't throw my support to a team that won't work together. Michaelyoda (talk)
 * It can and does work together, however the only one to blame for this is Alemas. He's the one that betrayed my trust and I refuse to converse with a member of my team that I cannot trust completely. Otherwise, it works together just fine.

Comments

 * So I'll put my reply in the comments section where it should be. There's been an issue in chat that Alemas was going to help us resolve. He told us he'd get back to us the next day after he thought about it. He wound up handling it in a rash, immature way because he felt pressured. I know Ale had no ill intentions, but I also understand Mad blocking his PM as he did betray both mine and Mad's trust, even though it was unintentional. Please don't let this issue change your opinions on Mad's ability to be a buro.
 * "He told us he'd get back to us the next day". From the chat log: "Alemas2005: Well, that I can decide tomorrow? 9:06 ZXSpidermanXZ: That's fine." Not exactly "getting back to you"... But I've already said, I thought that meant I could actually decide on it. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless(Talk to me) 17:42, October 10, 2015 (UTC)