| ||This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.|
This vote is no longer open and has been closed by the candidate
Hello Nukapedians, it's your admin TwoBearsHigh-Fiving, and this is my request for Bureaucrat.
My basis for running is quite simple. Another administrator and I are disgusted and quite frankly a little demotivated when we see that this Wiki is starting become nothing more than sophomoric politics on a daily basis. I love this Wiki too much to leave or watch it burn, and rather than abandon ship, I want to step in as your Bureaucrat. Here is some bullets on things I would implement or do if appointed bureaucrat.
- To see to it that proper mediation is bestowed on all users, admin or not.
- To stop it with the sophomoric politics. Our policies our fine, efforts to change them constantly to an extreme degree only facilitates Wiki drama. In short, if it's broke, don't fix it. Along with the other Bureaucrats, we will review any request for a rule change/policy modification and see if it is fit for a fora discussion.
- Some of you do, some of you don't, but at one point this Wikia was a great place. It made me want to be here, we worked on articles, had fun in chat, and just basked in the lore of Fallout. The politics have ruined us. It almost makes me not want to be a part of it. As a Bureaucrat, I would like to make one rule change, one that I feel is necessary. It would look something like this. "If you are making obvious attempts to fuel drama or cause unnecessary fuss, you will receive a small ban." This claim against said user would be up for BC review, as often times, it's our very own admins doing this.
- As a bureaucrat, I will not tolerating the belittling of others. I see it way too much in chat and in the fora. Harassing, intimidation, or pulling rank when not needed will NOT be tolerated by me at all. I will step in and handle the situation appropriately.
- I know, I'm not the editor with the most edits. I have a decent amount, I know how to work the Wiki, and as an admin, I have proved that I am proficient enough for my position. I am running on my beautiful stubborness. Initially, that may not be a good thing, but in this case it is. We need a strong bureaucrat who will put his fist down when he sees that things are getting out of hand. I want to clean this community up, I love all of our users, I hate when I see them fight. I want this so I can help, I won't become power hungry, but I would like a smooth running Wiki, where we all get a long and get back to the basics, that I can promise you.
- I think we can agree, we have 3 amazing bureaucrats, but quite frankly, I feel as though they are much too distant with the things we have going on. We need someone to step in make their presence known.
- Of course, I will also uphold editing standards, help new users, everything expected of a bureaucrat.
I think people see me as someone who speaks softly but carries a big stick, both on here and in my every day life. This is what I can promise you. I am reserved but I will take action and not tolerate these things that plague my Wiki. I have proven myself as an admin, and will use the position of bureaucrat with responsibility, for the greater good of this Wikia. You know I won't start drama, but I will end it.
So I close up this application, remember my friends, we can not allow all of these politics to continue any longer. We must remember why we're here, so vote, use reason, do not get dramatic. Vote on the person you know I can be, I can promise you that I will do everything in my power to keep this Wiki civil, and the best one around. -- 20:46, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
As is customary for an application, here is my edit count. I have a decent amount of edits, but remember what you are voting for.
|Type of edits||Edit count|
|Fallout Wiki talk||1|
|User blog comment||200|
- yes I have full faith in Burrs. 20:48, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- yes Never doubted Burrs before, not going to now. Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 20:59, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- yes Endorsed for the alphabetically same reason as endorsing Gunny. It's admirable to want better treatment for all. It's just a shame this thought pattern is in the apparent minority.-- 06:54, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- yes Same reason as on Gunny's B-Crat request. I'll reiterate: Anyone can edit and code, regardless of position. But it takes something special to lead. 07:08, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- yes As I put a majority of the important points on Gunny's request, I'll spare you all a bit of reason and give a shorten reason. Ryan plans to offer something we need in the current community standing. That is a plan to help the community, and if he feels he can only achieve this by becoming a BC then so be it. I will fully support him. -- "This is my road, you'll walk it as I say" 01:35, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
- yes Wildwes7g7 (talk) 02:28, September 11, 2012 (UTC) If 2 people have stood up and have said that they want this place to have more freedom yet with A clear head, I vote for both to keep this place friendly and well sorted with the editing picture 5 is better than 3.
- yes Gunny and Burrs as a package deal is a prospect that I like. Gunner(talk)
- yes I am voting yes as a counter-balance to Gunny's proposal. 5 bureaucrats may seem like a large amount, but it is a formula that works for many other gaming wikis, and can have success here as well. To be honest, for the last while I have not felt the current bureaucrats are doing enough to address some of the serious issues within the community. With both Gunny and Burrs taking an active stance in this area, I believe it will benefit the wiki by not only addressing these issues, but it will allow the combined bureaucratic team to focus on their strengths. Despite my vote, I still think Burrs will need to continue to take major steps forward in certain areas, but for all intents and purposes this is a good move for the wiki. Apocalypse Now! 03:52, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
- yes We need some change around here. BC's can do that. 01:24, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- yes I've thought about this for a week or so. I do feel that there is a need, and I know Ryan well enough to know that he will follow through with what he is promising here. Ryan, keep up the great work and attitude, and this vote will stay a yes. Don't make me eat my words. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 02:15, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- yes RamboRob196 (talk) 02:16, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- yesDarth Roxas (talk) 17:15, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- yes I have seen ryan active a lot more, in the chat and in recent activity. He seems to want to make this a better place, so yes. I just wish people would remember there was always drama here, but lately without our more experienced users it gets out of hand a little more easily. "Hail to the Pigeon!" 20:05, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- yes I see no problem in having another b'crat. Ryan is competent, and he fills the gap that exists here. J is a superb member (needless to say), but focuses on editing. Clyde hasn't been very active in the past months, or GAV. I think Ryan could fit in, since he has the touch with the community, the presence in chat, and competence as a bad-edit-spotter too, so to speak. It's not that the others have less, but they have different fields of action. Ryan would add a lot. --C'n-Frankie -ArroyoTalk 19:13, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- no Limmiegirl Talk! ♪
- no Definite no. I see no current need for yet another bureaucrat, as 3 is a good number right now. And even if there were a need, I don't see you as the best candidate for the job. Wanting to stop "wiki politics" does not require bureaucrat rights or the title, it is something that anyone can aim to do. This may be a relatively-well written request but you have only listed things you aspire or plan to do in the future, but have focused little on your actual qualifications. I have reservations about your actual ability to make objective decisions as I feel your emotions get in the way a few times. Even in this application I feel like that is so. Your plans for change may seem inspiring and very hopeful, but in reality I do not believe you are fit for this job. --Skire (talk) 21:56, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- no More or less what Sigma said. Thanks for summing it up for me. ट्रेलरपार्कप्रिमाते टॉक पेज 22:39, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- no This a no, simply because, as previously stated, your intentions are good but poorly executed. We don't need a B'Crat dedicated to putting people on the "naughty step" for acting like Humans, and I'm sure there's enough sensibility left for people to have a stiff upper lip for drama; we're not a theatrics society after all, but drama has been here since day one and from day one shall it continue. If you had a better motivation then sure, you're a fine editor and contributor, but as you said "I am not active in the community where drama is concerned" so I don't see how you can even accomplish your goals without even involving yourself with the task. Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 22:55, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- no I always hate making votes like this against my fellow friends and Administrators... I have to be honest though and vote the way that I currently feel. I don't feel that you're around enough these days, for once, and I also consider you as fitting perfectly into the role of Administrator. I don't really think you have the mind set needed to become a proper 'crat. And finally... wanting to become a bureaucrat simply to have a higher say in removing drama is not enough reason to justify such an attempt. Not only that, but it is an entirely utopian ideal. We've always had drama here. That's just life. Drama is part of human nature, and the best we can do is keep people from ripping out their throats during the more uncivil incidents. Some Assembly Required!
- no Nothing personal, its just that I think 3 bureaucrats is enough. Prepare for the Future!
- no As with Gunny, it took a while for me to get my thoughts straight on this., I've looked over both sides of the issue though, and I've come to the conclusion that 1: I don't think we need another b'crat. 2: I don't think you're really ready for the position, on the grounds that you're no more active than Clyde is, which is a little hypocritical. And lastly, Even if you were right for the job in my eyes, you're doing it for the wrong reasons. Wanting the position solely to use its name's weight to quell arguments? And I also have a big issue with the whole drama crusade in general. Drama on this wiki only exists because people try to mediate. When two users are arguing, and four more step in, taking sides to stop the fighting, the whole thing goes Balkan Powder Keg and you have a full scale war on your hands that does even more damage than letting the two original parties sort their own matters out. And that is what my whole thinking is on this: users need to solve problems for themselves. Solving problems for them isn't the answer. Yes-Man and Cartman might still even have admin positions here if people didn't take sides and blow the issue out of proportion. Might I Say You're Looking Fit As a Fiddle! 06:08, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- no Detailed in the comments since it was pretty darn long CharlesLeCheck 00:57, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- no It seems polls like these are causing the drama we are trying to prevent. Do we need another bcrat? No. Would it hurt to have another? Maybe. Time will tell. Pony of the East
- no This is not a vote against you as a person 2Bears - Could you do the job, sure. This is simply a vote on the grounds I do not believe there is a vacancy. I believe the perfect number of Bureaucrats is exactly 3. A Trokia prevents a 1-man dictatorship and a split decision in a 2 man partnership, it also doesn't permit voting blocks to be formed. Now I don't agree with everything J does, and goodness knows I and Clyde have had the odd disagreement, but actually I think their "hands-off"ed-ness (if I may invent a word) is an asset, it means they come to these issues with a clear head free of misconception and voting for favourites/friends. Gunny has qualifications that to me that exceed my apprehension, but Ry I don't think you're at the same level... Agent c (talk) 22:02, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- no My reasoning for this forum is basically the same as the one for Gunny's forum, as I see similar examples of promises and intent. To cut things short, no. --Talk 18:34, September 16, 2012 (UTC)
- neutral I am voting for neutral at the moment until I can make a decision. I'd really like to see some more community activity from you, Ryan, before I could vote yes with a clear head. - CC 21:35, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- neutral I have to think about this, Ry. Don't think of this as a yes nor a no. I will change my vote after giving this some deep thought. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 21:41, September 9, 2012 (UTC)</s>
- neutral As for me, I have not seen Ryan be as part of the community as I have seen Gunny. I'm going to be neutral until I can clear my head about this, and finalize my decision. "THE WABBAJACK!" 21:02, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- neutral It's nothing personal against you, I'm being honest. This is just my opinion, however. Your stance on not labeling a certain type of grunt as "cannon fodder" is respectable, and that particular issue is not a big deal at all. However, it just made me feel a bit concerned about your stance on other unrelated small issues similar to that that may come up in the future. I hope you understand that this is just my sole opinion, and it is nothing personal. I was originally going to vote no, but I realize it would be very brash of me to judge on that one incident, so neutral, and stick. Eddo36 (talk) 02:59, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- neutral Well, I had to vote no. You would need more dedication here than other users here. You might have potentional, but I'd rather see more action. Energy X ∞ 18:55, September 16, 2012 (UTC)
- neutral Call me lazy, but I did quite a bit of reading today for the other issues at hand. Give me awhile to better educate myself on this matter. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 21:18, September 16, 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I understand there may be some questioning that there are two individual requests right now. I would like those of you to consider this: Both Ryan and I are intent on changing the atmosphere here. Neither of us can do this without help. It will take the combined efforts of all the BCs to achieve this, we MUST speak with a unified voice. 21:17, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I am not active in the community where drama is concerned, you will find that I vote on policies and decisions but I don't get involved in nonsense. So initially it looks as though I'm not there rather than be a part of it.-- 21:38, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
I endorse this basis and it's views for 'cratship same as I do Gunny's. I would also put a vote in for you, but, and I don't mean to make you feel bad by saying this, it seems futile at this point, but 2 yay's against 7 nay's seems prematurely decided imo. Regardless, I agree with you.-- 06:44, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're correct, but don't let that stop you from voting. If everyone approached with that attitude politically, things would be very different.-- 06:49, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
I personally don't think that pier mediation is the job for 'Bureaucrats. If anything the position of mediator should be bestowed on a single user, and one other user as back-up when the first is not available. (might i add, this is a job that i have some experience in) The lone wanderer's bad-ass grandma (talk) 15:16, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Peer mediation is not only the job of a bc but that of admins as well. In all honestly if that is all you want the bc position for why have you not tried doing this as an admin that looks poorly on your part? From my point of view you just want more stars on you helmet so you can tell people what to do. Maybe, who knows only you do. I can only speculate. After the incident with the halo chat which after I found out what happen I had everyone drop it, the only drama inducing thing after that is this bc vote. Personally I see this as a repeat of the same shenanigans you pulled with the joint bc request with yes-man. No offense to yes-man but wasn't that another political ploy? Let's look at this in a hierarchical system which is kinda similar to how we are set up. The bc's are similar to police chiefs. They deal with the Sanasse's of the world and other wiki's and various other wiki wide stuff while at the same time we deal with general admin duties when we can, or when we feel the need for it. Example Halo Wiki. The admins,mods, chat mods are police officers who are on the beat banning the chat violators and blocking vandals. They are also responsible for dealing with situations that also happen in the wiki. If you see a heated discussion in chat causing drama, tell those involved to drop it or be kicked, that simple. Same thing with forums and talk pages. If you can't get anything done then contact a bc like you would in an edit war with another admin. Common sense. Oddly enough neither myself,J or Ghost pages have anyone reporting anything about any "drama" that needs a bc's fixing. That means either one of two things. 1)Our admins figured out a solution or 2)they have no common sense and the same drama from 2 years ago is still running right now all unchecked. My point is this, if you haven't tried to put a stop to the drama as admin, what makes you think you can as a bc?--Kingclyde (talk) 06:11, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
No offence taken, although I'm not sure political ploy is how I'd put it. Frankly, as much as I hate the word, there's always going to be "Drama" here. There's always going to be someone making a scene or two people arguing over whatever stupid little thing ticks them off. Sitting by and letting it happen isn't actually solving it, its just tolerating it. Being a bureaucrat isn't just "Stars on the helmet" or a guy who logs in every now and then to promote users, its a community position. What I wanted, and what Gunny and Two-Bears wants, is someone who is actively involved in the community (no offence, I know you're busy off-site) and who can deal with these things when they arise. Saying "Take it elsewhere" or "Don't do it" isn't solving anything and is poor effort on a bureaucrat's part. I'm not saying Two-Bears or Gunny can do a better job than the current staff, but they're going to try, which is all we really need. Denying them that chance is, frankly, unfair and counterproductive.
To sum up, you can either sit around asking people to stop (which clearly hasn't worked) or you can give someone else a shot at trying to mediate. Claiming political ploys or implying people who want a promotion are ego-stroking megalomaniacs is somewhat paranoid and in the grand scheme of things very silly. I don't see either of the users running at the moment to be the corruptible type, and if they are, its as simple as having Wikia remove their rights and continue on as though nothing changed. And, while we're at it, the community holds bureaucrats in higher regard than a common administrator, so there's a likely chance that people are more likely to listen. If you don't like the idea of another bureaucrat, then work harder and we won't need to have these requests. Don't take it personally, but that's just how I feel about the matter. 06:52, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Actually Yes-man, I've been probably more active than you have been lately to be honest and I am a lot more connected with the community than you think. From what you are saying you are rehashing the same old stuff you hashed on your last bc request. Apparently you need to do your homework. I know it's a community position, I am not an idiot and I am deeply involved with the community. Just because I rarely see you means little. You alone are not the community, everyone has different hours, for instance why are you not in chat? I am right now. You did literally just write this response. Oh that's right I'm not active in the community. Silly me I forgot. Let's look at your points and analyze them yes?
- "To sum up, you can either sit around asking people to stop (which clearly hasn't worked) or you can give someone else a shot at trying to mediate."
For the record, saying "take it elsewhere" and "stop it" hasn't work because to my knowledge no one has tried it. Nor has anyone banned people who argue and cause drama. If it is admins causing drama, why has no one notified a bc? Let's say you noticed two admins fighting and you asked them to stop (because you said that has been done before) and they said no. Would you go tell a bc about it to step in or would you just let it pass? Fact is on neither myself, J's or Ghost pages is their 1 request to mediate a "drama" dispute. Edit disputes yes but not drama. If and admin is having problem with users and drama use the tools that's why you have access to them! Having dispute mediation etc will make matters worse. We
- "Denying them that chance is, frankly, unfair and counterproductive."
Where in the hell are you getting this stuff? Where did I ever state that they should not get the chance to get a promotion.
- "Claiming political ploys or implying people who want a promotion are ego-stroking megalomaniacs is somewhat paranoid and in the grand scheme of things very silly."
It's a historical fact with this user. And I'm paranoid for voicing my opinion? Hypocritical much Yes-Man?
This last one is a doosy,
- "If you don't like the idea of another bureaucrat, then work harder and we won't need to have these requests. Don't take it personally, but that's just how I feel about the matter."
I never said I don't like the idea of another bc. YOU don't know me. You do not know how I feel about things so do not make assumptions. I've worked hard at this wiki and in my opinion and I'm sure in many others here at this wiki I have earned this position. I personally do my job and feel I do it well. I honestly thought that you were done with your petty drama but coming here and telling someone that they suck at their job. This coming from a former admin who made a big scene saying he wouldn't come back until another user leaves. Grow up and learn to respect people. Everything you said above was a fabrication or a twist or word intended to cause your own special form of yessie drama. If you wish to continue this please do so on my talk page of another forum as furthering this here is in appropriate.--Kingclyde (talk) 07:38, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
Clyde: I absolutely understand your concern. However, I wouldn't call this a shenanigan. It was my intention to be an absolutely legitimate request. Yes, while it is true that you are more than effectively able to mediate problems as an admin, it is discussing things among other admins that is the problem. I feel that I kind of get pushed to the side at times by the other admins, and yes, perhaps it is just an extra star on the helmet, not to tell others what to do so much as help out. I'm not looking to seize this Wiki under my control, I think those that know me a little better would find that I'm not looking for that. I'd also like to make it clear that as a bc (Or not, I'm going to become more active in this next week) I will uphold all other duties expected of one, editing, helping in chat, and discussing community issues.-- 13:39, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and took a quick look at how the good folks now sitting on the bureaucrats' lounge got there, and it's clear as noon that they toiled really darn hard to get there, and most telling of all, took a heck of time to as well.
Start: February, 2009
Adminship: October, 2009
BCship: September, 2011
Start: October, 2010
Adminship: April, 2011
BCship: September, 2011
Start: November, 2010
Adminship: March, 2011
BCship: February, 2012
Start: July, 2011
Adminship: January, 2012
First BC request: March, 2012
Can ya see the difference here? Our current bureaucrats waited a darn long time before applying, got used to and did a lot during their tenures as administrators, and only then applied. I mean no disrespect to ya, but what ya did so far and the time ya waited is still not nearly what they did and how long they waited. Your first bureaucrat request came barely a month after your adminship! That's not enough to be the 4th guy in the community, I'm sorry to say. CharlesLeCheck 00:55, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
I don't know that i want to say yes. When you say you want to get rid of politics stuff, do you mean you want to "ban" people for debating what faction is the best for the wastes, because I often enjoy debating with people over the Legion, NCR, Enclave, BOS, etc. being good or bad politically and if you want to get rid of that kind of conversing, then that's taking away a lot of entertainment and freedom of speech. I don't insult people or anything, but I do enjoy having intellectual debates about fallout factions here on the wiki. If you want that gone, my answer is most definitely no. Darth Roxas (talk) 17:10, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. That is a great thing about this wiki, that we can all have different ideas and opinions. I'm speaking more about the troublemakers causing drama.-- 17:12, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, i'll vote for you then. Darth Roxas (talk) 17:14, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
I realize my anti-drama platform is off-putting to some users. I intend to stick by it, as I'm not going to hastily abandon something I believe in. I would like to remind, if elected bureaucrat I will continue to edit, be active in community discussions, issues, and chat. I will be extremely versatile, being the best Bureaucrat I can be. If not elected, I will be the best admin I can be. I will put in 110%. If you know me more personally than others, you will see me as a trustworthy guy, never will I go power hungry or off on tangents, I will keep collected, and be strong. Please consider this -- 20:03, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
I have decided to rescind my request. It's apparent that I'm not even a decent administrator, so it was silly to put this in. I thank all of you for your time and words. I will try harder next time.-- 22:12, September 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, a girl I really had feelings for put me down today. So that was the rejection talking. I hope you all can understand why I rescinded this request, there are those more deserving, and I'd like to run at a time when I have the full faith of the community. Thanks for the support:)-- 23:31, September 16, 2012 (UTC)