Fallout Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Fallout Wiki
Nukapedia: The Fallout Wiki
45,279
pages
in: User rights requests (archived)

Forum:Adminship Request - 69.l25

View source
Forums: Index > User rights requests > Adminship Request - 69.l25

I am officially requesting administrative abilities for this wiki. It’s up to the community’s discretion to approve or disapprove me request, specifically the bureaucrats, and I ask that you please read the following in which I have spelled out why I feel it would be appropriate for me to become an administrator.

Intorduction

In the half of a year I’ve been here, I’ve made a total of 3,353 edits as of 10/17 under the following users:

• 69.l25

• 69.125.134.190

• 68.197.229.108

I understand that some may find my editcount to be minor in comparison to our current admins; however, please understand that I have only been here for around six months; and, with that considered, I have made a vast contribution to this wiki in such a limited time. This time, however, should not discourage you from considering me as a possible administrator; we are at a time where we now have only eight admins, and out of all of them, only five have made an edit at least once this week. I also find that I have often reported a vandal in an edit summary, and this has gone completely unnoticed. I understand that our admins have very busy lives and can’t always be active on the wiki, but where they lack, I can fill in. Admittedly, no, I’m not always editing, but I am frequently checking the recent status and patrolling for vandals. I edit every day, at all times of the day, and I’m always open to discussion if one or more of my edits is/are questioned. I try to be fair and act according to out rules, and try to make new users aware if they break the rules; moreover, I think I have learned from the admins how and when to block and for how long per offence, and of course I’m open to learning more.

Contributions

Here, I have mainly corrected character data such as Karma, SPECIAL, skills, etc. My knowledge with the GECK gives me access to data that would have gone overlooked or otherwise ignored had I not brought it to attention. In the beginning, the changes I made were to major characters, and I was surprised that they had false information, so I took it upon myself to continuously check any data we have and any new data we receive with the GECK before making and reverting edits. Besides general corrections, I am also the project leader for the FO3 and New Vegas character stats project. Although it has been going slow recently, hopefully in the future all editors will be able learn the new infobox system and use it correctly. This is a project that requires extensive knowledge of the GECK and how NPC/creature data translated in-game, and although it is difficult to check all the infobox’s calculations in the GECK, it’s worth it to have correct information Recently, I have been more focused on patrolling data. While I might now always leave an edit summary when I revert edits I find to be problematic, I am always willing to explain my rationale behind each one. I think I have been bitter in some older debates over edits, but overall, I have always let anyone I disagree with voice their opinion so that we could discuss it. Lastly, I created a forum proposing additions to our character infobox. This won’t be nearly as complicated as the stats project, nor will it require a project, but it will require someone why knows in detail how the GECK works and can explain this to users. In preparation for these additions, I have already created pages on “Class” and explained how it works and its in game-effects. I will also be more than happy to create more pages for the additions and gather the necessary data from the GECK.

Goals

I’ve explained this in the introduction, but I’m more than happy to make a quick summary, as I wouldn’t expect someone to read through it all. Specifically, I aim to: 1.continue to patrol edits but with new administrative powers that enable me to be more independent, as I have proven myself to be able to, 2. serve as a mediator when needed; I feel I’ve shown myself to not hold grudges and be open to dialogue/discussion at all times 3. Remain an active presence on this wiki in a time of lesser activity and absences from many administrators but now primarily from my account.

Conclusion

My biggest problem is that I have only been here from half a year, and I know this will influence your discussion. But please refer to the users at the top of the page and read through my edits; you will find that I am here every day and I have added content this year that had been missing from this wiki for so long. This is content ranging from correcting information, GECK and character data, cut content and miscellaneous characters. Even though most other admins waited longer than I have, they did not have the same large amounts of edits by this time. Apart from this, my distance from the community may be a disadvantage, but please know that I have been here for all this time now, even if you weren’t aware that I was. I’ve spelled out exactly why I have made this request, and I encourage anyone to leave comments and questions below and I promise to answer and be active in any discussion. Thanks to everyone who votes; I know that I will learn for this, and I hope that I have made my case. 69.l25 (talk) 02:13, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

Vote

Yes Votes

  1. Yes His/her expertise alone calls for it. And I appreciate having him/her around. Enclavesymbol 02:32, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes I think he/she deserves the position on admin...and no I'm not saying that because I have to!The cake is a lie...because I already ate it... (talk) 17:14, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes While all concerns below are valid, this user would obviously benefit from the administrator's toolset. I too share concerns with his/her anonymity and user interactions, but in my opinion the greater good is more important. We currently have (or have had) administrators who use their extra tools for the social aspects of the wiki, so why can't we have someone who uses it only for the technical? Bottom line, it's a good move for the wiki, and I expect the rest will fall into place in time. FollowersApocalypseLogoōrdō āb chao 03:18, October 21, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Yes After thinking about it, I take it back. You getting admin rights is good for the wiki, and you could really help on the technical side. Dead Gunner's SMG JPG1 "Semper Invictus" 22:45, October 21, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Yes More than enough time has passed now, and I feel comfortable with your responses and attitude since the start of this request. I mentioned it earlier, but I believe you will easily fill the shoes once the responsibility has been given to you. So at this point, with the criticism you'll need presented, consider my vote a yes. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:32, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

No Votes

  1. No Good editor and all, but what's the point if you're hardly logged in to use them? It would be an easy yes for me if you could only stay logged in. Hopefully someday you'll rectify this and have my full support. Cheers, - Chris With no background 02:36, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  2. No Leon took the words out of my mouth. You're a good editor, but you rarely ever use your account and I think that's a requirement when it comes to being an admin. Also, you're too secretive, it couldn't hurt for you to chat with the community when you have the chance. We need to get to know you better. You need to gain our trust. THE NUCLEAR KING Talk 03:17, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  3. No Reasons stated below --MountHail (talk) 03:34, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  4. No I hate to say it, but the lack of both community presence as well as the lack of editing with your account are causes for concern for me. I see the contributions, but the fact that it's mostly from anon accounts is troubling. Additionally, outside of a select audience, your edits are those of just another anon, albeit a reliable one, and that creates an issue. To be an admin you need to have that face within the community, and you lack that as far as many of our editors and users would be concerned. Richie9999 (talk) 03:41, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  5. No Going to have be a no from me. Honestly, it isn't necessarily the lack of account use that turns me off. In your interactions and the way you do things, I get no sense of community from you. I feel as though you're a rogue entity working separately from us. An Admin has to be a friendly face that is willing to help and form a strong cohesion with the surrounding community. You're a fantastic editor, that is not disputed. I think that you may want this for the convenience (And of course being able to ban vandals while you edit so much is a huge help), the position of Administrator is something so much more. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 04:28, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  6. No he's good at what he does but he is rarely logged in to his account, which we had to beg him to get anyway. Being an admin isn't just having some fun toys for editing, it requires a little more and at the very least being logged in is on the list. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 13:44, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
  7. No The votes above say it all. Perhaps in time 69.125 I just can't say yes today. SaintPain TinySaintPain→ Here to help." 00:47, October 22, 2013 (UTC)
Excluded votes
  1. No They all summed it up for me, my man. You're a damn good editor, but you just aren't active enough in the community for me. If you get involved, you should expect to blast through your next request with flying colors. Dead Gunner's SMG JPG1 "Semper Invictus" 19:53, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Agent c (talk) 08:49, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Neutral While people are held up on you not using this account (69.125) very often, I don't really care that much; as long as it's the same person behind the multiple accounts and they have lots of experience with editing and adding good info, it shouldn't matter. As long as you only use your 69.125 account from now on (for contacting reasons), it's a yes from me. If you can't do that, then it's a no. People are also frustrated with your lack of presence in the community, but that bothers me less than it does them; this is a wiki and solid information should come first, not a community identity. Readers that look at the articles don't give a rat's ass about who wrote them, but instead are looking for information. An identity is nice, but certainly not necessary. --Kastera (talk) 23:12, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Agreeing with Kas' opinion, I believe editing skills and general knowledge should have precedence over "community involvement." To me, the fact that you're willing to dedicate your free time to building our article base, adding infobox data, checking information, and patrolling, shows that you are contributing to the wiki plenty. After all, we are an encyclopaedia of knowledge first and foremost. Furthermore, I do not like your switching between accounts and two different IPs, but I imagine with sysop rights you'd stick with the user account anyway, so that's not really a problem. However, a crucial job of an administrator is to be able to deal with other users in a variety of possible situations. Administrators must be able to resolve conflict and maintain a courteous but assertive tone. I believe your interpersonal skills could use work. Finally, I'd like to see more proper usage of the edit summaries. You show promise, initiative, and a willingness to improve, and I hope you'll take to heart the good advice given by users here. --Skire (talk) 16:15, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Not being around much for the time you've been active, I really have no idea about who you are or what kind of user you are. As such I can't possibly give a proper vote, be it negative or positive. However, I do have a couple things to say in general that apply to this request. First, we do need more active administrators. The gap in coverage and general involvement was obvious to me even before, and I can only assume it has been made even more severe given that a few of the then-active admins have gone inactive (myself included), and no new ones have been elected to replace them. Second, as I said in Theodorico's request, quote: "Some are arguing he's not community oriented, but I rather see that as a positive feature, not a lack. We have more than enough community admins, and diversity is invaluable". Given the feedback this request has gotten, I believe that quote is pertinent here as well.
    Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 01:36, October 22, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Hello, one of the "less than one edit since last week" guys here, and I can't really say I've been here enough as of late to justify a positive or negative vote; fear not, though, for I intend to snoop around. Hugs MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
  6. Neutral As one of the Admins who has been rather absent lately, I cannot definitively say that I can support or reject your request with good conscience. However, your application is eerily similar to Theodricos in terms of how heavily involved in technical and editing abilities you are as well as how distant you seem to be from the community. However, I agree with Limmie that involvement with the community does not need to be all that relevant to the position, though some participation is necessary, especially skills in communication with the other Admins for projects as well as being able to help members when they approach with questions. Diversity is essential for us to move forward as a wiki. We need experienced editors and people with the knowledge to maintain and improve the mechanistic side of articles, especially among the admins . With the relative lack of editing many of us have slowly fallen into a cycle of inactivity, and that's OK because we all have lives. However, if we continue to reject every qualified individual who comes along we will never be able to rejuvenate the energy in the wiki, and will find ourselves in serious trouble when the next game is released even if it's not for some time. ---bleep196- (talk) 03:08, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I ain't been around much for a while and all, yous seem cool but I don't know who the hell you are besides the anon dude, therefore I'm gonna vote neutral. Ain't fair for ya for me to vote no cuz I don't know ya. Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 02:21, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
Note: The above vote was cast after closing of the polls, albeit only by a few minutes. --Skire (talk) 02:22, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
Excluded votes
  1. Neutral See Discussion/Questions section. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:29, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion/Questions

You have become a very prominent editor here at Nukapedia, and even when you are an anon, we have come to rely on you for expertise and innovation. I think you easily have what it takes to become an Administrator here. However, there are a few things I'd like to bring up before I can bring myself to make an official vote:

  • 83% of the time, you have remained anonymous. While the other prominent editors around here are quite familiar with you, you have remained largely inconspicuous amongst the rest of our community. How are you going to rectify this? As an Administrator, you will be expected to have a face around here. But before you can represent Nukapedia, the community as a whole needs to be able to trust you.
  • I've noticed some of your dealings with other users. With the Administrative tools, a new personality will set in with the responsibilities and I have no doubt you will learn how to address other users. But I know it's always a bit concerning at the beginning to see when promising editors are struggling in their understanding of how to adapt to other editors' personalities to get the best responses and results from them.
  • I would like to hear in your words what you can bring to the table as your specialty. I believe that every leader should have a unique skill that sets them apart from the others. I would like to see what you consider your unique specialty, and how it can help innovate Nukapedia for the better. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:29, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
To response to each of your points... (I hope you don't mind if I flip the order)
  • My specialty is the GECK really. There's no other admin that has the same knowledge and resources that I do with it; this is especially useful now as I have proposed new additions to the infobox and someone needs to go through the GECK and get down every combat style, faction, class, etc., and that's something I can do. We're still missing out on a lot of data for FNV and FO3 characters, and that's something that can be worked on before the release of a new game
  • I understand that recently, my conduct with other editors has been dull and somewhat condescending. That's something that I need to work on, but when I'm focused solely on adding in new content such as what I'll have to do for the new infobox additions, this isn't a problem. I've really only been bitter when I see users blatantly violating the rules, having never even reviewed them at all.
  • Of course I can represent the community; I just prefer to focus on perfecting and adding content rather than jumping into chat of commenting on the latest forum. I'm probably going to receive a lot of votes from people who haven't made more than 100 mainspace edits, but at the end of the day, I'm doing this to better the wiki, and if people are going to oppose me because they have been too busy in chat to see the content I have been adding, then they're missing out on the chance to have someone that has made so many edits in such little time, corrected endless amounts of false info, and added content what hasn't been seen in years in such a time of low activity 69.l25 (talk) 02:44, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

You're one helluva editor sir. But I feel inclined to make a request of you before I say yes.

Thank you for the responses. I wanted you to have the chance to explain this more in-depth so those reading can make an entirely informed approach towards their vote for you.
As for your dealings with other users, I trust that you will learn in time, and I know for myself personally, I'm willing to overlook that fault seeing your passion and ability to hold your ground while giving ground as necessary at the same time.
I know that the chat and blogs aren't that important considering the wiki. I'm a perfect example. I never once used the chat feature until after I became an Administrator. However, an Administrator works for the community and not just for themselves, and as a personal suggestion, getting to know the people that will possibly begin relying and looking up to you will help your endeavors here as well as your ability to improve Nukapedia.
Again, thank you for your responses. I'm going to wait and see how this vote moves forwards first, and I will see about making an official vote a tad further down the road. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:52, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
Would you kindly use an account of your preference and converse with us on chat?

Ordinarily I'd require more from someone who also received C-mod rights but I feel disinclined to deny you tools that you can definitely make use of for the betterment of this wiki.

That, and I hardly think you're unbecoming of a chat-monger given what I have seen from ya. Best wishes! --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:34, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

In response to what Chris said, I'm the same person whether I'm logged on or not; at the end of the day I'm still spending hours collecting data from the GECK and trying to add in new content. In fact, many of the pages I added were done anonymously, but does that somehow discredit them? 69.l25 (talk) 02:47, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

And in response to the Nuclear King, if you want to trust me, look at me edits and frequency. Like I said, only five of our eight admins have made at least one edit this whole week. I've created useful pages on subjects that no one had even thought of, and I'm continuing every day. Also, I'm always checking the recent activity, and its getting tedious having to report vandals instead of having the ability to do something about it. Account or no account, I'm still the same editor, and I've still added the same content. 69.l25 (talk) 03:28, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, I feel being logged in is important. You won't be able to use the rights given if you aren't logged into the account with those right. It's also harder to keep track of exactly how many edits and such you have. I know you have been here a while and made some fantastic editing, I think you are good for admin. But, if your account is what we go by, it says you have only been here for 3-4 months and have about 1000 overall edits. That is good, but I feel that being logged in to use these rights to begin with is important. As this vote goes on, I'll keep my eyes peeled on what others say and may perhaps change my mind based on that. As for now though, I have to stick with my current vote. - Chris With no background 03:30, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm glad to hear that you're keeping your eyes peeled but you brought up a great point. I actually log into my account immediately if I need to rollback or want to start marking edits as patrolled. Of course, you won't see this in the recent activity because it doesn't show up. And, why would you only go by my account? I've made thousands of edits anonymously and have added and corrected so much content as well, and I'm currently involved in two projects; I'm the leader of one. Maybe if I provide a link to the anonymous editcounts, that's be easier for everyone to see. 69.l25 (talk) 03:35, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't discredit any of your edits. It's just that a admin is a social figure and using multiple accounts doesn't help what we know about you. Other then being a GECK wizard, the community knows little about you. Try to interact with the users and let people know you as a person, I'm sure more people will back you up then. --MountHail (talk) 03:36, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

I won't be using multiple accounts, as it's gotten too troublesome for me to log in every time I need to use patroller abilities; it would be much easier to stick to this one. And, I'm more than just a "GECK wizard". I'm sure if you looked at my edits you'd see the kind of content I'm adding and patrolling every day. 69.l25 (talk) 03:40, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I've taken into account your patrolling. I still think it would be in your best interests to involve yourself in the community. (whether in the chat-room or on blog posts) --MountHail (talk) 03:51, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how if I correct someone's Karma as an anon it's troubling, but if I do the same thing logged in, it's somehow not as bad anymore. And, you need a face to be an admin but you don't need to be editing? I'm sure the community loves our current admins, but they're not as around as they used to be; there aren't as many people available for mediation and for banning vandals. 69.l25 (talk) 03:46, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

I am at an odd straight here.

  • It is hard to deny this individual has contributed to this site... I do not have the time or inclination to track IP addresses.
  • The Admins trust this individual because they recognize the IP address & I have no issue with that, but if 69.125 wants to be a leader I do not think it is too much to ask of him or her to join us wee mortals enough to have a memorable USER name..

I don't distrust anons because they are as hate mongers say "Newbies" I just dislike their willful Anonymity

SaintPain TinySaintPain→ Here to help." 04:12, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

I will admit, I am not crazily active during the school year, but I am on every night to ban the necessary vandals. I feel as though you have very little respect for the administrative team. I have seen you cite time and time again our editing averages and statistics. The only thing I can deduce from that is, "The current admin team isn't active doesn't care/but I am so hire me on." As of recent yes, there has been a drastic reduce in edits as there have been fewer things for us to do. Every administrator on here as far as I'm concerned is a pro, we've been here awhile and have done quite a lot. We all have had our low and high points, but in the end we're a team that works as a part of the community, and that's what counts. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 04:32, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

"GeckAnon" is certainly a most suitable candidate for adminship... The work and dedication he's put into the wiki over the past few months perhaps only challenges Jspoels record, so it is with a twinge of regret I cannot vote yes today, and indeed that I can empathise with regret about the overal direction of this request.

To me the username and logged out issues are of minor importance... Whilst there is perhaps some question of accountability by having the record over a username and several IPs, "GeckAnon" has certainly never hid the link between them (I was going to say never hidden their identity, but forgive me if this is just pure paranoia, but I can't shake the feeling we know you by another name).

The reason I can't vote yes today comes down to the talk page messages I see you leave sometimes... Yes, Vandals are annoying, but I think your wording sometimes is too harsh, and in some cases may perhaps skip over a possible good faith interpretation of their actions...

Please don't let this discourage you from continuing to contribute, and running when the cooldown is over... I remember two cases, one a young chap with dreams of being an admin who got shot down, although he proposed leaving the wiki after failing at a vote (indeed, he was rejected mostly for the same reason I vote no today), he in the end chose to stick it out and is now one of our most dedicated admins - the reasons for his initial rejection now lie forgotten even by those of us who voted no. The other is again another young chap who was clearly needed in the admin ranks for special skills, was rejected, and now I think everyone is weaker for his leaving.

I look forward to voting yes to you next time, as long as the quality of your inter-user communications increases. Agent c (talk) 09:04, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

From what I've gathered from the votes, some of the reasons why I people would not support me being granted admin rights are:

1. I don't always edit from my account

2. I'm too secretive and don't communicate with the community enough

3. My conduct on other people's talk pages is sometimes too harsh, unhelpful, or condescending

I'd just like to respond to each of these points to hopefully further the discussion.

1. I think I've said what I needed to say about this already; whether it's done anonymously or through an account, the content I have added and corrected has bettered this wiki. I will not let the fact that I waited to make an account and then used it only when I needed to use my patroller rights overshadow or discredit my contributions.
2. This is one that I'm sure everyone agrees with. I have to say that no, I don't use chat of frequently visit forums, but I frequently communicate with members of the community with regards to articles, policy, and forums related to our pages.
Kastera took the words right out of my mouth; my priorities lie with the content in this wiki and my image in the community will come second. Believe, me I'm here, and I will communicate with anyone who has questions about my edits, but I don't dedicate my time here to necessarily talk about which Enclave officer was the best, what my favorite weapon in Fallout 3 was, and any other forum topics. Sure they can be fun for some, but I am far more concerned with the content, especially since we could be using this still time to capitalize on perfecting our current content.
3. I agree that at times my dealings with others has been overly blunt, but I haven't made enemies nor am I holding any grudges against anyone else; and nobody is holding grudges against me.
I honestly have to say that having SaintPain acknowledge that I have made a lot contributions to this wiki was a great thing given that we've had our disagreements in the past, but we've managed to work things out; for example, we were both able to compromise on an issue regarding one of his images of a bugged Talon Company merc; we were able to put our personalities aside to provide the best content for the wiki.
And yes, I will be using my account from now on. 69.l25 (talk) 23:26, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone else, but I want to clarify a bit upon my words and the reasoning behind them. Does it matter that you prefer to be anonymous? Not at all. Like Kas said, it's your editing that qualifies you as a trustworthy and talented individual here. Should we deny you simply because you're not used to taking on an authoritative tone with other users? We're back at point one with this. And if your talent lie specifically with editing and you have little to no interest with community affairs, then we have no reason to question your stance on that as a mere editor.

But once you are given special rights, you become a tool. Both a wiki and a community tool. You will be expected to take on the burden of responsibility. You will be expected by editors to help them in their times of need, where a typical user would only care about doing their own thing. This is where my queries stand, as I want to know if you're actually ready for what you seek. Because when Fallout 4 comes around, you will be slammed on a daily basis. You think vandalism is bad now? Just wait until the spam bots and proxies come back. With hundreds to thousands of new users coming in daily as they did with Fallout 3 and New Vegas, you will be swamped with user questions and you will be asked upon by the other Sysops to settle disputes.

And most importantly, as a representative of Nukapedia, you'd become a driving force behind our image and how we evolve as a whole. Because, whether or not some of us around here would like to admit it, your voice will carry more weight. Your opinions will help shape new policies and guidelines. They will help determine whether other users get special rights or not. And you will be a motivator for whether or not users stay here, or if they leave out of frustration and dissatisfaction. Keep that in mind, friend. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:42, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

I answer anyone's questions that they ask, and you know what I don't hold grudges and can mediate when needed. I am somebody who has come here in a time of minimal activity and managed to add heaps of content anyway. I've remained respectful and willing to help; just look at Tribal Wisdom. He's a fantastic editor, and I tried my best to point him in the right direction for the stats project, and soon he was updating infoboxes like crazy without any need for assistance. No, I'm not usually up for talking about which character was my favorite, what type of Nuka Cola I liked the most, or what I did last weekend because I try my best to treat this place more professionally. If that isn't an image that people would want associated with us then I would be scared to ask what is. 69.l25 (talk) 23:52, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
I understand. I just wanted you to know that I don't think it's necessarily a lack of participation in community events that has other editors second-guessing. It's just a lot of responsibility, and around 80% of the time using the special rights tools will be dedicated towards other aspects of the wiki than editing. A reason why requests have failed in the past is simply because there were users that wanted the extra tools to make their editing easier, but weren't willing to put in the effort at actually being a leader. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:39, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and I can assure you that I'm not requesting rights just to have my experience be easier. It's like the patroller rights I have right now; I still have to go through he process of reverting an edit to leave an edit summary, and using rollback should only be done after that. Retrospectively, however, It has made getting rid of vandals and unwanted edits easier, sure, but this is not the primary focus I had when I made the request. I'm willing to put the effort it takes to be an admin; my participation and conduct here shows that. I understand what is spelled out in the guidelines, and I know that I would have a responsibility to mediate, review bans, and conduct myself in an appropriate fashion. I stress the importance of listening to our rules and changing them if that's what the community wants, and I believe I can bring insight into the necessary discussions, questions, and circumstances that would arise if I were to be given these rights. 69.l25 (talk) 00:54, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

"[H]e is rarely logged in to his account, which we had to beg him to get anyway." Don't make the mistake of thinking that I made an account because of you or anyone else who asked me to make one. I did it so I could upload images without having to ask other editors to do so for me; it was becoming uncomfortable to have to ask someone to upload an image for me every time I wanted to add an one. 69.l25 (talk) 20:11, October 20, 2013 (UTC)


With vote's closing coming soon, I feel as though I should just address the criticism and "No votes" as a whole to hopefully provide an opportunity to further the discussion.

The earlier votes seem to focus in on the fact that I did not log in much, but this is really a nonissue; as I've said, whenever I needed to use my patroller rights, I logged in to use them, and for this week, I've always used my account and intend to continue to do so.

Now, the other votes focused on my lack of community presence. I think some of the best insight into this came from the "Neutral votes" to be honest. Limmiegirl's quote from Theodorico's request specifically stands out to me: "Some are arguing he's not community oriented, but I rather see that as a positive feature, not a lack. We have more than enough community admins, and diversity is invaluable". As bleep put it, we can benefit from diversity, and we already have admins who are focused on the community side. And, I'm not working separately from the community; my talk pages are enough to show that I have the necessary communication with other editors when it comes to questions, concerns, and editing. The bottom line is, my focus is content, and my involvement on forums and chat, which is really where this "community presence" criticism is coming from, as I'm completely ready to respond to anyone on my talkpage or article talkpages, will come later; right now, I have far more priorities with the content in our articles. 69.l25 (talk) 11:12, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

I've stated in my vote that neither of the points you've addressed above is within the scope of my concerns. Along with a few others, we are uncertain about the interpersonal abilities and general disposition towards other editors. --Skire (talk) 19:50, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
Well, what I said was in response to the No votes, which I'm glad you pointed out did not address major points of concern. In response to my conduct with others, I again point you to my talk page; whether it's SaintPain trying to tell me that the GECK is not a reliable source or an anon trying to tell me that "good" isn't an opinion, I've never gotten angry or unreasonable. Instead, I always try to explain things, and in some of the "debates" like with Piers Isley, I'm always looking for a compromise. 69.l25 (talk) 20:12, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
If you have any examples that you'd like to point out regarding my conduct for the sake of discussion, that would be helpful. 69.l25 (talk) 20:16, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
I think the above is a pretty good example. I know you don't mean it the way its coming across (lord knows I used to struggle with this), but things like "whether it's SaintPain trying to tell me that the GECK is not a reliable source or an anon trying to tell me that "good" isn't an opinion" and the ""less than one edit since last week" comments can come across as quite hostile and/or bitter. My objection was to talk messages that read similar to "Stop or you will be banned by an admin"... okay, sometimes we can't help but to be hostile, but I think maybe you need to stop and start to mentally pre filter your comments, think about them a little more before posting, see if there's maybe another way it can be taken. Agent c (talk) 20:37, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
Essentially, there are degrees involved with how you deal with others. If an editor is an obvious vandal, then we wouldn't care less what you said to them as long as you didn't get extreme and threaten to eat their family or something. But when we have potential editors that have contributed to our wiki in good faith, but made a mistake or maybe they have a grievance that other might find an annoyance, a lighter tone is typically needed. We're a mature themed wiki and all, but we also have to have a friendly environment, or else others will perceive us as hostile and will leave instead of contributing. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:44, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
I understand completely. The "stop or you will be banned" message only happened once, and I've had better dealings since then, so it's unfair to really focus on that. I was thinking that might have been something a few of the neutral voters may have considered. 69.l25 (talk) 20:47, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

Now that the polls are just about done, and it’s time for the bureaucrats to make the final call, I find it appropriate to just thank the members of the community for their insight on my request. I’ll admit the discussion is not as great as I hoped it would be, as many “No” votes were justified by me not using my account or lack of “community presence”, topics which are really now nonissues, as pointed out by the recent comments, but hopefully this will be taken into consideration.

The main concern seems to be my dealings with the community. I now see that my comments can be easily taken the wrong way, but based upon my adaptability in terms of the technical/article side of the wiki, I feel that it is not unreasonable to believe that I can improve if you think I need to. I really think the most valuable insight came from the neutral votes, and they’re certainly worth reading over. 69.l25 (talk) 02:07, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

For the bureaucrats' consideration

Since the polls have closed by now, I won't bother changing my vote, but nonetheless I wish to voice my change in opinion. After reflection and serious thought, I have realised a few things. Here we have a user with technical expertise who is willing to dedicate an extraordinary amount of time to the betterment of our site. He is willing to check over hundreds if not thousands of pages for accurate data, willing to patrol the RC meticulously, and always willing to respond to TP queries. Of course, there are many issues that have yet to fully resolve themselves, but I'd say this is the same for nearly all post-Split administrators, myself included. In time, and with the advice of experienced administrators, I have no doubts that such issues will be rectified. A strong admin team is a team that covers all aspects of wiki management; not everyone should be a jack of all trades, but rather we should all have our own niches, our own specialities. Running this massive wiki is a fully voluntary effort, without any remuneration. As such, someone who is so dedicated and without incorrigible character flaws should not be denied the privilege of taking the next step in service to the wiki. To summarise, I am a proponent of User:69.l25 gaining sysop rights. --Skire (talk) 02:34, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Result

After discussing it with The Gunny we have decided we can't grant you admin rights at this time. There are more no than yes votes and most of the admins have voted neutral while at least some of those needed to be yes to pass the request. It came too soon, it surprised me and I reckon most other users, especially the ones in chat. They haven't come to know you well enough to vote yes. Now you're an editor, we don't expect you to be in chat frequently, but a little more community participation (reacting to blogs or news digest etc.) can already do some good to become a more known face for everyone. Using an anon address and your normal account at random didn't help in that department either, you need to become a steady and easy recognizable force for people, so use your user account. And some interaction (summary comments, talkpages) didn't go that well either in the past, that needs some improvement too. And I see you're working on it, right in this thread and in the past week on the wiki. You've become more friendly and open to criticism. Keep that going and you will pass the request next time, which can already be in 2 months time. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 22:14, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement