| ||This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.|
Well here it is, part duex. If you missed it the first time around, you can read it here. Now for some of you this will come as a surprise, due to the split and my home being The Vault. For others, maybe more so a surprise, after being badgered and repeatability refusing to make a request. It is for them that I am finally making this request to settle the issue.
That is not to say I don't have my own reasons. Over the past few months I have gotten repeatedly frustrated at the drama, some of you may have noticed with my outbursts on the forums. The frustrating thing, that has also compelled me to make this request, is that some of those issues could have been prevented, if handled differently, before they got out of hand.
And this is what I offer as a bureaucrat. I may no longer be a big time editor or contributor to the content of the site, but I do have good organisational and management skills. This is what I bring to the table as a bureaucrat.
Surprisingly, some of you may think this is a short request. But it is in fact double the length of my previous one =P So lets cut to the chase and get to the voting.
yes 188.8.131.52 13:50, July 7, 2012 (UTC)Anonymous users may not vote. --Skire (talk) 15:16, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
- yes Hell yes. As far as I'm concered, Ghost is still a BC. The community never asked for his BC rights back.
- yes Absolutely, with no insult to the current management, Chris would bring an excellent hand of authority to the table. The good thing about him is that we know what he is like as a bureaucrat and will do just a good of job as before. A strong editor with a large community presence.-- 20:46, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- yes It gives me a reason to randomly harass him. Hugs "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
- yes Welcome home (well, home away from home). Agent c 21:02, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- yes He's practically a bureaucrat already in my book. Cc99910 Talk 23:23, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- yes Happylice 23:31, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- yes I've been waiting for this. 23:44, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- yes If anybody else here were to run for bureaucrat - including myself - I would campaign hard to make sure they never received the position. You on the other hand have proven yourself multiple times over, and we need someone with your set of skills and loyalty. Just a question though to ease my mind... Are you going to actually do something aside from your promises to act as mediator during conflicts? As nice of a thought as this is, you do not need a b'crat position to follow up on this ideal. I'll change my vote to an official stance if you can provide me with a solid foundation to believe in. Which I have no doubt you'll be able to dredge up for us. ;) Skål!
- yes He's already an administrator, and the difference between that and a bureaucrat is the latter expects more of the management and communication elements. And during my time here, I have noticed that GhostAvatar excels at precisely that. He knows how to deal with situations in an equitable and pragmatic manner at an unprecedented level since the split. Also, Kingclyde has been rather busy recently so Ghost can help out greatly in the bureaucrats' roles. --Skire (talk) 00:00, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
- yes Step down, step on again. --I'd rather not beat you to death with a slightly heavy silver spoon 01:19, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
- yes Is this even a question? :) Hawk da Barber 2012 02:07, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
- yes Ghost should still be a bureaucrat, but Wikia (who's all for community synergy, I might add) had his rights removed out of fear rather than a community consensus. But look at me now; harping on Wikia, making me angry all over again. So yeah, Ghost is still a bureaucrat without the title. --Kastera (talk) 17:10, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
- yes I have complete faith in Ghost as a BC, and have bright hopes for the future with him in his new (old) position. -- "This is my road, you'll walk it as I say" 17:51, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
- yes Normally I'm into writing a lot to rationalise the yes vote, but there's no need. -- GOTW User | Talk 00:32, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
- yes You got my vote! :) --The Nuclear King 00:45, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
- yes As per all other yes votes. Welcome back. Apocalypse Now! 05:18, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
- yes As you were one of the leading admins here, I suppose that you may restore this wiki to its former glory... Energy X
- yes I honestly didn't even know he had lost his BC rights until last week. Victor the Insane Cowboy Robot 10:32, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
- yes There isn't a single reason that would make me vote no. EBTalk 18:25, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
- yes I haven't been here long, but I think he would do most excellently (is this a word?). User:Vault_75 18:39, June 25, 2012
- yes I wonder if anyone will vote "No". GobTheGoul (talk) 14:13, June 26, 2012 (UTC)
yes Chris McGearyVote invalid; voted the same day as joining.
- yes You deserve it. ButterflyKiss εïз
- yes If you strike him down...BILLYOCEAN Wanna talk? 02:00, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
- yes I'd be crazy to vote no. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 13:34, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
- yes GAV PLS! Do you think you won't win? The Enclave shall prevail! 23:01, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
- yes We need more B'crats atm, with J being our only active one other than Klyde. Charcoal121 (talk) 23:23, July 2, 2012 (UTC)
yes He's done a really great job, and I don't see why he shouldn't. have them back. The Enclave shall prevail! 22:05, July 7, 2012 (UTC)Vote nullified - poll is over at the time vote was cast. Also, only one vote is allowed per user. --Skire (talk) 22:09, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
yes I see you on the wiki a lot, and you make great edits. 瘸腿的刺猬 -->FunButton 23:11, July 7, 2012 (UTC)Vote made after the poll was finished. Energy X ∞ 07:35, July 8, 2012 (UTC)
Garoux, it all depends on what your expectations of a bureaucrat actually are. On the technical side there is no difference between an admin and a bureaucrat, except for the ability to grant user rights. So one could argue that there shouldn't be a need for more than one person in a such position. However, this isn't actually the case in the real world, especially when operating a successful wiki of any kind. Due to Kingclydes' recent inactivity necessitating the need for another bureaucrat position to be filled. Let alone the fact that having three people in such a position prevents any future stalemate on issues that could lead to an impasse, which breads conflict, high emotions, and said drama. Are obvious and compelling reasons on their own.
But this is the Fallout wiki and things are not always as black and white as that. The expectations of a bureaucrat here are much larger than simply enforcing community consensus when it comes to user right appointments. The expectations are more of an authoritarian leader for the community, something which I tried to downplay last time, and will probably continue to do so as I don't fully agree with it. So even if you may not agree with it, it does give the opportunity to address such conflicts in a way an admin never could. But that is all really theory and psychosocially, which can be discussed at great length with out any real answer, as social grouping is ever evolving. The only true way to measure such a need to address with votes such as these. Hence the main reasoning for this very thread.
But to address your question about doing something else, I have to ask my own question. Is there anything you feel that a bureaucrat can do (other than the obvious technical granting rights), that an admin isn't actually able to do? To me there is nothing in terms of actual physical tangible contributions that can be quantified by edit counts, templates, projects etc. It reminds me of the story about a coach who can't swim, coaching an athlete to Olympic silver in swimming (the name escapes me at present). This is what I bring to the table. 20:43, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
- That's enough to win me over! As I said, you pretty much had my yes vote from the start. I was just kind of iffy on your points, since they only really mentioned peer pressure and an agenda of sorting out high tension moments around here. (I wouldn't really call it drama.) Now that you've clarified upon your position some more, I no longer have any concerns. Like many have said before me, I've considered you as still being a bureaucrat anyways. It wasn't right of Wikia to remove anybody's rights in the first place. Skål! 21:11, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
I'm gonna start a GhostAvatar fan club. Who wants to join?
|This user is part of the GhostAvatar fanclub|
- Well to be fair, they did act based on those who had said they were still hanging around here... But never mind that. Perhaps however there is scope to officially redesignate our "Former" B/cs as inactive, and thus make this vote redundant?
- To me the perfect number of bureaucrats is 3, if only to have a tiebreaker vote in the event there is an immediate contraversey that the admin team is stuck on and needs to fall to a B/c vote. Agent c 20:53, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes-man, done to a degree. However, I do need to personalise it with other junk.
- Agent-c, they also acted in bad faith. Assuming that we would act like others have acted in the past (there own words). They judged us on something we never did. And I can put my hand on my heart and honestly say of myself, I would never have done. Also, at the time, I did explicitly state I would continue to be around, continue my duties, and help with the transition until it all settled down. But the past is in the past and, considering the wounds it caused, it is probably best left there.
- But back to the matter, even though the rights where stripped without community consensus at the time. Two wrongs don't make a right, the way they acted doesn't justify the reasoning to negate community consensus to correct it. Besides, a little waiting doesn't really hurt. 21:26, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
- If I remembered right I offered to reactivate you bc status. As far as I am concerned you are still a bc here. In spirit at least.--Kingclyde (talk) 09:18, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations, you're a bureaucrat again. It's not with the same enthousiasm as how I voted the first time (which you'll probably understand), but the community has faith in you and I'm pretty sure you won't let them down and help out where you can. I'll leave it up to you where you wish your name to be placed on the administrators page and what level of activity. Jspoel 18:05, July 8, 2012 (UTC)