I am humbly asking for you consideration for extension of my rights again, this time for Bureaucrat rights. My reasons and my intentions are clearly detailed in the following application.
Rationale for applying
I want to make myself as clear as possible on my rationale for asking you to support granting me Bureaucrat rights. First off, so that everyone understands, the only de jure rights a Bureaucrat has over any other sysops (administrators) is the ability to grant and remove sysop rights. De facto, Bureaucrats in our community are also looked at as mediators in disputes between admins and as a final arbitrator of any issues the admins and community cannot resolve themselves. It is in this de facto capacity that I ask you for these rights.
We currently have 3 Bureaucrats, each outstanding editors and leaders of the community in their own ways. Unfortunately, as a group, they have been unable to impact what I feel is the biggest problem this wiki has: The internecine conflicts involving admins and other editors that daily fill the recent changes log with vitriol, rhetoric and hubris. I don't personally hold them accountable for this. They have their real lives to attend to and can only spend so much effort to quell the tide of inappropriate behavior that has been so rampant. This is in no way an indictment of their actions, but a response to my own words to another:
I'm going to put my money where my mouth is. I will not sit idly by any longer, powerless to stop the sophomoric drama that pervades this wiki on a daily basis, and watch the reputation this wiki has with others outside our community degrade even further. I refuse to say those words to someone else and then not act on them myself. To that end, I put forward a platform that I fully intend to enact. I don't want anyone to vote on me, I want you to vote on this platform:
Intentions
- Intolerance of other's views and positions will no longer be tolerated. The days of belittling others for their taste in games or their other life choices are over. Whether this be in chat, on blogs or in the forums, any demeaning behavior by anyone will be immediately deleted, whether they be editors, moderators or admins. If you can't treat others with respect for them AND for their positions, then leave.
- Policies, including administration policies, will be enacted with force. This applies to everyone, admins included. There will be no more interpreting of policies to one's advantage or using admin rights to coerce or browbeat editors. All policies will be enforced AS WRITTEN, and anything that is not clearly outlined in the policies will be rights reserved to the editors. If you can't abide by the simple rules we have in place, then leave.
- Personal disputes that cause any kind of disruption will be immediately mediated and if not resolved will be forced off site. This is a gaming wiki and personal disputes have no place here. If you can't keep your personal arguments off this wiki, then leave.
- The focus of this wiki, from here on out will be the development of an atmosphere where editors, new, old and anon, can edit here without fear of retribution or admonition by others as long as they are acting IN GOOD FAITH. If you can't grasp that abiding principle of all wikis, then leave.
I understand there are many here that will take umbrage at the points outlined above. Simply put, if you don't agree with those points, then I think you are the problem.
Qualifications
| There should have been a list of this user's edit counts here, but the edit counts feature is no longer available. |
Only as a means to demonstrate that I fulfill the promises I make to this community, I will state that my intentions listed on my admin application have been acted on. I told everyone I would learn to help maintain the technical side of this wiki, and I have been diligently doing that. I have learned to create complicated templates, I am learning to use CSS to modify the site, and I am starting to learn javascript. All promises I made that I am keeping, just as I promise to fulfill any promises made on this application. For what it's worth, here are my edit counts:
Vote
| ||||
Yes
If the majority feels we must have another then I would support Gunny for the post.
SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 18:20, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
Gunny has proven himself as a strong minded leader, he will do what's right without taking total control. He will be fine addition to the bureaucrat team, and only better this Wiki as a whole.-- 20:48, September 9, 2012 (UTC)- Ditto ^ --BravoAlphaSix 20:52, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Gunny has proven to be capable of being able to do this job. Basically, Burrs nailed it. Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 21:00, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, gunny hasn't added to wiki drama. Other than that he has been active for a long time. He definitely more than deserves this. "THE WABBAJACK!" 21:05, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I've given this thought, and here's what I've come up with: when we have a dispute, argument, drama, whatever you wish to call it, Gunny is always the level-headed one. Gunny always has some sort of solution. Gunny is always a positive influence. You know that it's serious when Gunny is angry or drastic. I honestly cannot think of anyone else who has earned the bureaucrat position more than Gunny. Good luck, Gunny. You truly deserve this, and I know you will always be thinking in our best interests. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 21:34, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- You have proved time and time again that you are more than capable of being a B'crat in both the technical field, and the community. You not being a B'crat would be a crime. - CC 22:40, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- I commend you for a call to arms against what I like to call stupid bullshit. It's common courtesy and/or maturity really on what you're proposing imo, and the fact you're an an OG of The Vault/Nukapedia... well, maybe we should listen to an elder when they speak...?--Eden2012 (talk) 02:31, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Topple101 (talk) 02:17, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- ANYONE can edit or code, B-Crat or not. But if Gunny promises to get the community back on track, I'm backing him 100%. Same reason why I ran for bureaucrat those months back. 07:07, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Although My previous comments (see the neutral section) still apply, I believe that Gunny offers too much to the bureaucrat role to simply wait until one of our existing Bureaucrat team were to step down or go officially inactive. Agent c (talk) 13:12, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Appears to have the mindset that would be expected of a bureaucrat. A good and friendly editor and user and helps as much as he can to keep the community as much as in check as possible. --Callofduty4 (talk) 00:38, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent editor. --Cheese Lord (talk) 01:27, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Gunny as BC. This is an idea I have judged for some time now. After much thought, this is what I have came to: Gunny has in his time here (just over 11 months if I recall correctly) showed unquestionable skills with reference to coding, templates, weapon stats/comparisons and a huge multitude of other such things. I'm sure this is something we can all agree to. If the role of BC requires knowledge of editing, he has it down. But, no matter how much many people would deny and say other wise, the community here is very important. If not as equal to editing, more than. For without the community, there would be no edits, but that is a matter if you wish to discuss with me in private, feel free. Anyways, in recent time, the community has degraded. This is undeniable fact. But, what have we done? Sadly very little. Gunny has come to us, and given us something we need. An option on how to fix our problem. If he feels that he need's to be a BC to achieve this, then I whole heartly find myself behind him, willing to do what ever is needed to help this place I hold so dear to me. -- "This is my road, you'll walk it as I say" 01:31, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Wildwes7g7 (talk) 02:19, September 11, 2012 (UTC) 02:15, September 11, 2012 (UTC)) Gunny is going to add some balance to the current Bureaucrat team that this wikia sorely needs, he is A solid editor and has proven that time and again, he is fair and polite, and his age will help to provide some wisdom to some petty disputes that we commonly seem to have.
- He's one of the best users in terms of contributing to the mainspace on this wiki, so he definitely deserves the position. Charcoal121 (talk) 02:23, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
- I've always seen Gunny doing something. He always has a recent edit he's done, he's always on the chat, reviewing the logs, and helping others with their problems, which is something I admire. I don't think there's such a thing as too many bureaucrats, and Gunny is a top prospect. I know he will make the right choices *salute* Gunner Gunner's talk page
No
- If you were making this request because of your technical expertise and dedication, both of which I find flawless and have the utmost respect for, it would be a completely different story. But by the motivations you stated, absolutely no. Limmiegirl Talk! ♪
- I agree with Limmie. Although you're the only potential bureaucrat (who isn't already one) I see on this wiki right now, these are not the motivations I was hoping for at all. On top of that, I feel like the current bureaucrats are doing a very solid job to fulfil their duties and obligations without really asserting their position as a bureaucrat. And so I have yet to see a need, not to mention 3 is a good number for this kind of position. --Skire (talk) 22:08, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Again, what Sigma said. ट्रेलरपार्कप्रिमाते टॉक पेज 22:41, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Not much else to add to this which I have not said for Ry's bid for B'Crat rights, you edits and company is of course welcome but this "anti-drama crusade" is certainly not. Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 23:15, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- I've already explained some of my concerns to you in chat, so I'll keep this a tad shorter. In my opinion, you're one of the best admins we have. But I need to be honest here and state that I still don't feel as if you're bureaucrat material. And becoming one just to act as a higher level mediator? That's just not enough. I'm really sorry, but I must vote no. Some Assembly Required!
- Like I said, I think we have enough bureaucrats. Prepare for the Future!
- 3 bureaucrats is enough, and due to the likely result of Two-Bear's request an even number of bureaucrats is undesirable. I like your intentions however. 04:40, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- I very much agree with Sigma. You would make a great bureaucrat, Gunny. Really, I imagine you're the best candidate we have at the moment. But I think you're applying for all the wrong reasons. I have two reasons for saying this. Firstly, I think its a little hypocritical to apply for 'crat just because the title gives your opinion more sway. I thought our main goal here was fairness? Secondly, and the biggest reason in my mind, is that you will not be able to stop drama. What you call "drama" exists in human nature. Conflict. It can and will happen. It will always happen, and you can not stop it. If anything, trying to stop it from happening and mediating makes the situation worse. When a whole bunch of users try to mediate on an issue between two users, the whole thing blows up like the damn Balkan Powder Keg, and next thing you know we have Wiki War One on our hands. Sometimes, just like in W.W.1, by the end of it the original two arguing users aren't even the ones fighting the most. Instead of Austria-Hungary and Serbia, you have England and Germany! Anyway, that's my incredibly long response to this. Might I Say You're Looking Fit As a Fiddle! 05:59, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that trying to end disputes between users is a good reason to seek a higher position of power in a community. 06:52, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Gunny. Your easily one of our most skilled editors, and could very well be an interesting asset to the BC team. But do we really need 4 BCs? Your experience is not being questioned, the need for a new BC is.-- A Safe People is a Strong People! 18:36, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Talk about an iron fist of fury. What happened to the light-hearted wiki of old? As much as I'd like some Big Brother esque conformity, we don't need more bcrats. Gavy, J and Clyde are big boys and are more than competent to handle any more crap thrown our direction. Pony of the East
Neutral
Now you've gone and put me in a Pickle Gunny Cos I saw Ry's vote first and voted no on the grounds that I don't think there's a vacancy. All of that still stands, The perfect number of bureaucrats is 3 (This is a derrogation to my "no max admins/Mods" view as a decision maker I think these dont have the same "decision maker" role a B/c has. However prior to the return of GhostAvatar I was quite vocal I think in saying you'd be the ideal person for the job (which I saw vacant at that time), and should one step back, I'd be demanding you run for it. So, in short I can't vote yes on the same grounds as I can't vote yes for Ry. However if people do believe there is a vacancy, I can recommend recommend Gunny wholeheartedly, and would recommend him over Ry (no offense) if there were only one post. Agent c (talk) 22:09, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
Conclusion
I will be blunt: I am sick and tired of all the daily drama. This is a gaming wiki and any actions that detract from our mission: Create the best Fallout wiki we can, have no place here. I sincerely want each of you to vote, not for me personally, but for the points I outline above. I intend to change the atmosphere of this wiki, and a mandate on those points in absolutely necessary for me to have both the ability, and the backing of the community, to do so. Without the community backing on these points, it is pointless for me to have the extra rights. The Gunny 
20:46, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
Comments
Please do not leave long point by point discussions of my platform here. Any discussion of these points is not germane to this forum, and can be discussed in a separate forum if you wish. Please simply vote, yes, or no. The Gunny 20:46, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
I just would like to make a quick point. I can't do this without Gunny. Yes, two extra bureaucrats seem like a lot, but we must ask ourselves, when you have two authoritative people stepping in to make a stand, shouldn't we look to them? This community needs someone like that, and that person is TheGunny.--
21:14, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
There's been drama, daily conflicts, long rants, etc here since this wiki started back in the D&C days (perhaps a bit less so back then due to the limited size of the community). Basically, it's no worse now than it was before, it only feels that way now because we're in a inter-game hiatus and there's not much 'new ground' to cover, which emphasizes the petty daily beefs by comparison. Blowing the current situation out of proportion only adds to the problem, it does nothing to help it. Limmiegirl 
Talk! ♪ 21:37, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
The nature of this wiki, that is, its strict policies in conjuncture with its popularity, coupled with the damage we've taken from the split (mostly in admin quality), may bring about some more drama than certain other wikis. The fact that all conflict is being passed off as "drama" does not really help, I'd rather see people actively trying to mediate and solve problems as they come. If you're looking for less conflict, I can tell you now it matters not how many new bureaucrats there are. Our community just tends to have more conflict than some other communities - that is a characteristic. And to expunge this characteristic will only engender more "drama" in the process. --Skire (talk) 22:16, September 9, 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? 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. 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? I personally think you would make a good bc because of your work and track record. If you came in here saying you wanted to be a bc for other reasons, great but to be a referee? Oh and this "Please do not leave long point by point discussions of my platform here. Any discussion of these points is not germane to this forum, and can be discussed in a separate forum if you wish. Please simply vote, yes, or no." does actually belong here as this forum is for your bc request. --Kingclyde (talk) 06:50, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
I don't know a lot, but is there a limit towards how many bureaucrats we have or need? 
Prepare for the Future!
- No. We could have 50 bureaucrats if we chose to. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 03:11, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- We used to have four B-Crats: Go, Ausir, Porter and GAV. 07:05, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly is the issue with one of the two prospective B-crats becoming said 4th B-crat? Gunny should already be one in my opinion.-- 09:45, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- The issue to my mind is that the Burecrats are at the end of the day the final decision maker when it comes to critical issues, and even Admins look to them to make contraversial calls.. 1 Bureaucrat has no check on power and could if they wanted to effectively run the wiki dictatorial. 2 Burecrats offer a check on power, but have a problem with Deadlocks. 3 offers a check on power, with no deadlocks. 4 has the same problem as to, plus factions/voting blocks/parties start to form. This is why I feel the ideal number is 3. Agent c (talk) 13:19, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly is the issue with one of the two prospective B-crats becoming said 4th B-crat? Gunny should already be one in my opinion.--
@Denis, just need to correct you on one thing. I wouldn't say Gunny's been active that long, he joined about 11 months ago. You've been around longer than him... granted, in that short amount of time, Gunny's made some amazing contributions to the Wiki such as notice templates and rotating content. 
12:20, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- That's not Denis. Lol. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 13:38, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- lol, no, I meant this part:
- It's in the votes section :) 03:16, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
- It's in the votes section :)
I ain't perfectly sure how to vote on this one, to be 100% truthful. On one had, I still think it's a tad early to think of BCship, but on the other I reckon the contributions and the knowledge ya got are good enough to make up for it by large and wide. There's just a tiny little bit that's stuck on my throat right now that's making it hard to swallow. From the request I got the feeling the plan is for ya to be on the daily lookout for trouble and drama and then hand out warnings or punishments, or did I read it all bad? If that IS the case, then I have to tell ya, that ain't really sitting well with me, I see the BC as a last resort, last ditch position. CharlesLeCheck 
01:14, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
Gunny, if you were an admin longer, I would vote yes, but as I recall you were just named an administrator about less than 6 months ago. Right now you just don't seem to be bureaucrat material...yet. Prepare for the Future!
- How long ago he was made an administrator is insignificant in determining his potential quality as a bureaucrat. It is a very poor quantitative measure for something that needs actual judgement. Assuming this were a request made under non-ridiculous motivations, I would approve. --Skire (talk) 21:50, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
Addional intent
I was remiss in my request to not include one important point: How I intend to help resolve issues. I will add these points here rather than shoehorn them in above.
I intend to help resolve any agruments/conflicts by first identifying properly when something is starting to get out of hand. Once an issue is brought to my attention, I will ask each editor to step back from the issue temporarily, so that I can ask each of them what the issue stems from and for them to have the opportunity to cool down. After getting both sides of the conflict's views, I will attempt to mediate the issue. If myself and the editors involved can not resolve the issue alone, I will ask the editors to allow me to bring the other Bureaucrats in and give us a reasonable time frame to find a resolution that is amenable to all sides. After the other BCs understand the issues, I will consult with them in a timely fashion and another BC will inform the parties of our recommendations.
The key to this is promptly identifying when issues need mediation and getting the editors to back away from the issue long enough for passions to cool and the BCs to mediate. My intent is to prevent issues from even getting to the point where other editors get involved and/or people say things that may cause further damage.
I apologize for not including this in my original request, and hope that everyone considers these points. The Gunny 01:22, September 12, 2012 (UTC)