Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Joint Bureaucrat Request - TwoBearsHigh-Fiving and Yes-Man

You read it right. This, my dear Nukapedians, is a joint Bureaucrat request from your very own Administrators...
TwoBearsHigh-Fiving and Yes-Man! - Yessie

And it is only fitting that is a joint request. Two awesome, dedicated users go hand in hand! - Bears

This might be a crazy idea. But, hey... you never know if you don't try. Am I right?
So, without further ado, let's get on with this. - Yessie


We didn't get admin for nothing, folks. Me and Bears here work tirelessly to keep this Wiki up to shape. Well... maybe not as tirelessly as Jspoelstra... but then again, he's one of a kind. - Yessie

We have proved ourselves through our actions, and feel this is right for us to run. We will keep this wiki at the top, making it ready for the 500,000 gamers looking for Fallout help.- Bears

TwoBearsHigh-Fiving (cancelled)

This Wiki is something I love, the game, and the people mean a lot to me, so it is only fitting that I attempt to run for bureaucrat. I spend much of my personal time on here. If I'm not on the wiki for a bit, I am still on at least once a night. In being an admin and a regular contributor on my page, my work has been but is not limited to:

  • Creating about a dozen new pages to succumb to the needs of the ever growing red links.
  • Banned countless vandals, and have even mediated some situations with such.
  • Have performed over 2,600 edits.
  • Have re opened the Anti-Capitalization project.
  • Moderated many hours in the chat, informing users of rules and regulations, and having an overall good time!
  • Helped new users to the wiki, showing them the proper ways and answering their questions.
  • Involved my opinion in many discussions.
  • Stayed loyal to just this wiki.
  • I have been extrememly fair, thinking about decisions before I do them, whether it comes to bans or just a simple message.
  • Deleted many terrible pages, and have even saved some.- Bears
Type of edits Edit count
Total 10,326
Article 7,497
Talk 23
User 266
User talk 1,364
Fallout Wiki 68
Fallout Wiki talk 1
File 45
File talk 0
Template 15
Template talk 0
Module 6
Module talk 0
Category 5
Category talk 0
User blog 34
User blog comment 203
Blog 0
Blog talk 0


I'm sure you've heard it all before. Three times, in fact. I've been here since June 14th, 2011. I was elected chat moderator, then Wiki Moderator, and finally Administrator. In my time, I feel I've done a darn good job around here. Not only have I bravely defended chat, but I also check in every day, make edits wherever they need to be made, and I try to be fair and kind. I'm also pretty engaged in the community and I know pretty much everyone around here (Good quality for a bureaucrat, no?)

As a bureaucrat, I know I'll stop in daily. You guys all know me; I'm not the type to throw my power around. Hell, I wait to get evidence before banning trolls even when I know they're trolls! Everyone deserves a fair go, and I feel that I can contribute to building this community and weighing in on important decisions as a bureaucrat. Not to mention with the sudden increase in all these people wanting to be patrollers, chat mods, and admins, Clyde and Jspoel have their hands full! Here are some of my more important contributions:

  • Pages created - Joana's room, Commissary terminal, Karen Johnson, Paladin Northup.
  • Created FOOL Navbox, as seen on the Fallout Online traits page.
  • Spearheaded the creation of the Fallout Tactics Article Project.
  • Have been a successful administrator for quite some time now.
    • Also an admin on Fallout Answers and Vault Armory.
  • Community minded.
  • Regular chat-goer, and familiar with many community members.
  • Banning, deleting and protecting pages where needed.
  • Recent changes patroller.
  • Understand rules of Wiki and deals fair punishment.
    • Also, I know people who deserve praise when I see them ;)
Type of edits Edit count
Total 5,433
Article 1,324
Talk 177
User 399
User talk 1,273
Fallout Wiki 91
Fallout Wiki talk 5
File 119
File talk 0
Template 5
Template talk 0
Module 0
Module talk 0
Category 0
Category talk 0
User blog 72
User blog comment 1,206
Blog 0
Blog talk 0

Can I remind folks that editing doesn't equate to being a good leader? Just because I don't have many edits, doesn't mean I'm not going to be a bad bureaucrat! - Yessie


So, yeah. We've pleaded our case. The Vault had four bureaucrats, and it used to work like a well-oiled machine! I don't think anything can go wrong with this. If you actually think about it, two more bureaucrats can only mean good things for this Wiki. Improved leadership, more control to give Jspoel and Clyde some breathing space, and more people to weigh in on major changes (because as you've seen, this wiki has been changing rapidly, and two bureaucrats can't possibly keep track by themselves). Nukapedia deserves the same that The Vault had, and if you all agree, give us your vote! - Yessie

So ends our application. Our goal is to add on to the already awesome job done by Mr. Jspoelstra and Kingclyde. We can add greater clout to the leadership, ensuring that this wiki will always have someone on that can help out in situations, and provide a greater voice in the community. Like Yessie said, we deserve the best so let's elect the best! - Bears

Yes-Man Votes

Poll finished on 6:51 am March 16, 2012 (UTC).
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
    • Use # {{yes}} ~~~ if you support the proposal.
    • Use # {{no}} ~~~ if you are against the proposal.
    • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~ if you wish to abstain.
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.

TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Votes (vote closed)

Poll finished on 6:51 am March 16, 2012 (UTC).
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
    • Use # {{yes}} ~~~ if you support the proposal.
    • Use # {{no}} ~~~ if you are against the proposal.
    • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~ if you wish to abstain.
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.


If you have any comments, queries, or reasons for voting, please leave them here. Thanks, Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 08:23, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

  • I hope you both don't take any offense to my no votes, but this joint request has unsettled me something fierce. Maybe I'm just used to the old 'crats, but to me, being a bureaucrat requires advanced experience (I'm talking about experience with aspects of Nukapedia such as template usage and how to create new ones. Not just looking at old templates and copying how other people did it. I'm talking about an actual understanding of how templates work and why.) and a certain personality trait. (Being able to sit out on debates until your opinion truly matters. Always being neutral and being the leader that everyone needs, but only when actually needed. That's why we have Admins. These are only a couple different examples.) I also believe that every bureaucrat needs to bring something unique to the table that will overall improve upon the wiki. Makings edits here and there, working on a project or two, being popular in chat, that's something anybody can do and shouldn't be applied to the reasons why we should give you this new position. Those were reasons you needed to get a mod or Admin position and they don't belong here at all. I'm actually kind of shocked at how casual a lot of the votes before mine were, and it does worry me a lot if maybe a lot of votes these days really just become popularity contests without any actual real thought process behind it. If you really and truly want my vote, I'm going to need to see more than what it listed here so far. If you want examples, just look at how our old 'crats contributed to this wiki before they left. Compare yourselves to an editor such as Porter or Ausir and tell me if you truly feel like you can step into their shoes. I know I can't with my current knowledge, and even Jspoel was hesitant to become a 'crat because he didn't feel like he had worked himself up to this position yet. Remember that this position needs to be held to extreme expectations. I've seen too many wikis make the mistake of letting popularity create a lax environment, and it's only going to weaken our wonderful wiki in the end. Dragon Skål! 09:58, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, we've gotten a fair amount of feedback. But I feel that Ryan and I have exhausted our cavalier attitude regarding this matter. The real reason for this application is for the Community's sake. So far, we have two bureaucrats: Kingclyde and Jspoelstra. Although the Wiki has been running smoothly with them in charge, there are some issues. As leaders of this Wiki, Clyde and Jspoel don't have a strong community presence. Now, I know that Ausir, Porter21, Gothemasticator and GhostAvatar weren't very active in the community as bureaucrats, but I see that as an issue considering Nukapedia is a community-based website. Why elect bureaucrats who keep to themselves?
Clyde is a great editor, a smart guy and he is doing a fine job as a bureaucrat. However, he has stated that he does not enjoy the Live Chat, nor is he fond of blog posts. As a community site, shouldn't the focus of the site's leaders be placed on the people's concerns? A leader should know the people, know the issues among them, and act accordingly. With no due disrespect, there was a lot of emphasis based on Talk Page rules which dragged on for quite some time. But the average user here doesn't care about when they need to archive a talk page or what they can or can't add. And it seems to me that the current bureaucrats don't seem to realise that, or they simply don't act on it.
And then we have Jspoelstra. As great an editor as he is, that's all he is. An editor. Rarely do you see him talk to the community or put his two cents in a discussion. He is very out of touch with this community, and considering this website thrives on the community that isn't a great trait to have as a leader. Like, come on. I know it's great to make lots of edits but it won't help when you have no idea what the community is thinking. We have bureaucrats who know what they want; but they don't know what the common user wants. And that is the real concern to me.
So, in reality, TwoBears and I stepped up because we knew nobody else would. This is making a stand for the community, not for ourselves. I like Clyde and Jspoel, and so far they're great at what they're doing. But what they're doing isn't enough. It feels as though they're still stuck in a world where a bureaucrat is a good editor and little more. How the users feel is more important than how nice the site looks. You can't make a community decision without knowing the community. Ryan and I are here to give the community what it wants. The Vault worked fine with four bureaucrats. We're going to step up the game and make this a place enjoyable for everyone.
So if you do vote, don't think of us. Think of the common user. Ryan and I are in chat most times of the day, we know many people here and we know the real concerns of the users. We understand many, many users here, which is something I'm afraid our current bureaucrats don't. I cannot stress enough that I mean no disrespect to Clyde and Jspoel, but I do stand by my beliefs that they are not in-tune with the community. As long as Ryan and myself can inspire anyone, be it our current bureaucrats, or our administrators, to listen to the community's needs and work with them towards a happier website, then our application is a success regardless of if we are granted rights or not.
So if Ryan and I, or any other community minded leader, is elected, then Clyde and Jspoel can continue their edits but the community can be led by a Bureaucratic force that interacts with them and keeps their concerns in mind. Jspoelstra and Clyde, don't take this personally. I just think that you're very distant leaders, and that's not something that a community should have. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 10:12, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to leave you a comment saying why I hadn't voted (Perhaps too soon, do we need another, etc), but some of what you've said here has been enough to convince me. I think Clyde and J have done well as B/cs, and I think they will continue to do so. However, you are right, the B/cs we have don't participate in a large part of the wiki to a great degree, yes the "prime directive" is the enclyclopedia, but its not all the site is (nothing personal, if its not your thing, its not your thing, and we cant expect any given user or even b/c to be "everywhere"), their visits to chat are noteworthy thanks to their occasionally, and perhaps we do need to see more on the blogs. You've convinced me there is a hole in the leadership team for a community focused bureaucrat. The questions I now need to ask myself is, do I think thats a one person hole, or two; and if its a one person hole, which of you do I vote for? Agent c 10:19, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
As long as you understand the concept we're describing, and you know that a change needs to be made, I could care less if you vote for us or not. If we can get enough people to understand that we need a community-minded Bureaucrat, then our job here is done. We nominated ourselves because we felt that both of use had an understanding of this community and what it wants, so we should be the first to step in and make a stand. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 10:22, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to keep this simple. This wiki is meant solely for the storing of information regarding the Fallout universe and the history behind it. This wiki gains its power from dedicated editors and to be honest, a community is just something that happened to grow up around the love put into this site and is just a secondary and not as important feature available here. The ones who focus themselves entirely in chat, they don't care about the well-being of this wiki and they show that by not putting any effort into actually improving this wiki. (There are a few exceptions.) So should we take them into consideration? I truly don't believe so and the community here shouldn't be used as a tool to fuel future leadership. As I said, now this is just turning into a popularity contest. Look at the yes votes and it becomes quite clear. Dragon Skål! 10:45, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with you there. Whilst the social sides are definitely secondary, they remain an important part of the wiki in encouraging repeat usage and continued editing. I stopped editing on the Warehouse 13 wiki because there was nothing drawing me back at the time, whereas I keep coming back here thanks to the Chat, the Blogs, the Forums, etc (hell, it was coming here to post the odd comment on the news that got me here in the first place). The Wiki is the headline act, sure... but if I may paraphrase many cheesy commercials: Come for the Wiki, stay for the community. Features such as Chat, the Blogs - Including even the moose, and the forums are easy to underestimate the value of, they bring people back time and time again. I must admit Leon, given the strong community response to the Moose, I'm surprised to find you on the other side of this debate. Agent c 10:33, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
I created the Moose because I want to have it where it's not just all work and no play. I don't believe in a spartan environment, but at the same time I don't like to see social aspects seeping in and taking control of the professional aspects. A bureaucrats job isn't to get friendly with everyone here and learn everyone's names, their job is to improve this wiki professionally and to create an environment that will allow any Fallout buff to get his fix. I also don't believe the social community here is what keeps repeat business here. You have to remember that blogs and the chat feature are still new and in an experimental stage. As in we got those features long after this wiki became popular. So what kept editors in the past staying here? It certainly wasn't the social appeal because we essentially didn't have one from the start outside of the forums. Dragon Skål! 10:44, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Due to my laptop haveing it's usuall frenzy i was unable to write up my reasons until now, i just feel that a B-Crat is something that should be given to a member of the community who has been around for more than 2 years, i think you two are great admins, don't get me wrong, if i thought otherwise i would have voted no against the pair of you obviously but i didn't. I feel it's just far too early to be going in and requesting B-crat rights. To me it still just feels like yesterday that the two of you became admins.AaaaaTheNemesisx 11:53, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Altough I appreciate the fact that both are respected users, I just think it is soon. Try to be more active - working on some projects would be best. I hope you understand the issue here. MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 14:10, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Leon here. This is... ridiculous? Seriously. This is a wiki. The bureaucrats are here to decide on Wiki issues, to have the final say after listening to the community. You had some points in your application are... a bit arrogant when looked at. "A greater voice in the community"? Does that mean that you're more qualified than others in matters of communities and wikis? We live in a meritocracy here, and being popular in chat isn't really leverage for applying to bureaucrat and as far as edits go... I have more myself than the two of you combined. So you can't really support your claims appropriately.
I'm also aboard Leon's view on popularity contests. This isn't a popularity contest, at all, and some of the votes cast here are... not appropriate.

There is nothing I can say bad about Yessie, great contributor,a awesome person. He deserves this.

— A vote
What does that have to do with it? Awesome person? I think Billy and EB are awesome people, would you let them run the wiki? A great contributor? Good, yes, but great? I do not think so. Deserve this? That's just wrong. If votes are turning into this, something has gone awry fundamentally.
Anyway, before I go off track with a long rant about how this is bleeeeh, I'm going to stop. My view is that none of you truly fill the shoes of a bureaucrat. Yessie, you wanted to permanently ban Billy over the Ethan incident because you were "pissed off". Should a bureaucrat act on emotion? As for Ryan, I simply haven't seen enough of you in debates to really know what to think. You're not ready, though, that's for damn sure. You haven't even been here a year. There's my two cents. MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

You haven't even been here a year

— Scarface11235
I do not think you can be a bureaucrat. The edits, and the time of your stay doesn't count. I have nothing against you. Nothing is true, everything is permitted. One applying for BUREAUCRACY means WORKING HARD to acquire it. GauzzSigPic "Leave a message."
I have respect for both of you (don't get that wrong) and you are good users who have been loyal to this site. However I don't think we need anymore bureaucrats at the moment, we're fine as we are and this position should be for the most edit active users in my opinion. The Australian Kiwi 16:39, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I think I was taken advantage of last night. I don't even remember voting. But yeah, if this is a joke, this isn't that right type of joking. ToCxHawK 17:21, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

If everybody would take a minute to step back and see the whole picture. This is Nukapedia. I don't know about you but being involved with other Wikis has shown me that a majority take after this wiki because of it always doing the right thing when it comes to community matters, and having a great amount of amazing information. So if everyone would chose their stances with the utmost care and consideration, chose they words with the most thought and reasoning and remember, this isn't just for Nukapedia, this is for the people here, and all the other wikis and users who count on Nukapedia to do the right thing. If you all would do this right thing, then I ensure that a great thing for many will come of this. Thank You. --The Old World Relics 17:28, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to sound jaded or seem like I'm protecting my job but there are a couple of things here that do worry me. As other people have stated above, I don't think you are ready for this. Both of you have been here less than a year and you both have roughly the same edits. And the odd fact that you are making a "joint bc request" (which there is no such thing). Each bc request must stand on it's own. Also, there is a lot of speculation in this request "this wiki has been changing rapidly, and two bureaucrats can't possibly keep track by themselves" and "provide a greater voice in the community". As a bc, you don't get a greater voice in the community. I cannot stress this enough. You can only assign admin rights. I am not sure why no one can get that through their heads that we are all users is beyond me. And assumptions such as "I mean no disrespect to Clyde and Jspoel, but I do stand by my beliefs that they are not in-tune with the community" and by constantly pointing something out that is not true is beyond me. I honestly don't see you on chat often which means we are in different time zones. And as for how we are not active, just because I do not sit in chat a good portion of my time does not mean I am not active. This isn't the first time you have made your case by pointing out flaws in others, and by doing so it doesn't help your position. We are here for the community and both of us are here daily. And for future reference all admin/chatmod/bc requests must be made as individuals. And finally "If we can get enough people to understand that we need a community-minded Bureaucrat, then our job here is done. We nominated ourselves because we felt that both of use had an understanding of this community and what it wants, so we should be the first to step in and make a stand." if this is to prove a point or to teach us a lesson as Guardian did, you are going about this the wrong way. If not, you are asking for bc rights for the wrong reason. Sorry but I mean no disrespect but neither of you are truly ready for this postion. Ausir and Porter were the OG bc's and Ghost and Goth made bc with a lot more time and hardcore knowledge of the wiki's inner workings before they became bc's. You are simply not ready. I cannot vote on this (which I haven't) but I am free to leave my opinion.--Kingclyde 17:34, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Apart from what was already said by most above, I don't think you guys need being bureaucrats to lead the community, you can do it just as well being admins. TBH, I haven't seem that much leadership from you guys in terms of projects, initiatives, or practical solutions to the wiki's problems yet, which makes me wonder what exactly would change if you guys became BCs. This isn't meat to be offensive, and in fact isn't even a critic, it's just a statement of how I'm seeing this. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 17:45, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

That was well put Clyde, we're functioning fine as it is and you and Jspoel are doing a good job. I think chat is starting to influence too much here and the real decision making on matters needs to come from the editing side of this wiki, since we are a wiki. The Australian Kiwi 17:50, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

What Influence? Agent c 17:57, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
To me it seems that chat has got a lot more popular and is starting to influence a little more. For example the users who voted yes here are predominantly in chat. All users here are equal and have the same voting rights but the problem is, is that some of the chat users don't know enough about editing and how the wiki works in order to give a concise view on these sorts of applications. The Australian Kiwi 18:02, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
But the votes were mostly negative, so I don't think chat popularity is playing any weight here. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 18:11, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
  • There were a lot more positive votes earlier. Many of the votes have changed over recently. Dragon Skål! 18:12, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
I think that is precisely the point Kiwi. Chat has become popular, but has limited representation in the Leadership team. Now Clyde seems to have joined us a bit more recently. Eventually we're going to have to accept that whilst the wiki is the "Prime directive", its not all we are. Agent c 18:12, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
Ah I was just writing that Leon xD, c we can't forget the fact we're a wiki though, chat is a good tool but when if it becomes the focus of attention the editing side will fall and that wouldn't be good for the entire community. The Australian Kiwi 18:17, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel I shall formally 'vote' until it is needed, but I will say what I have to say. Firstly, I want to acknowledge you guys on a personal level as people I would consider 'friends' in the closest sense of the word you can get when you have never met a person in reality and all you have seen of them are avatars and text (to a lesser extent with Bears as I've seen him, and know him to a degree off-site too). However, I will say now for the good of everyone that this is not going to affect my judgement.
Unlike Al, I will say all I feel that needs to be said because I'm the kind of guy who looks at this (this morning), contemplates it and the precedence associated with it, and then say all my thoughts together in one long, ramble-y, but hopefully coherent, go (whilst having a cup of tea at the side to pause and make sure I'm still heading where I need to go). So, lets stop pontificating shall we?
First up, the addition of two more BCs is completely unnecessary. Although BCs have more weighty opinions due to their position, that is unavoidable even though the opposite is proscribed in the guidelines, there is no reason for an additional two in an administrative sense. Although increasing disputes are met with increasing BC intervention, the only real 'extra' of their position is the fact that they can make more admins. If you guys want a weightier voice, then get involved more. This brings me to the point that the both of you are actually majorly absent from the dispute, which could be seen as a good thing, and indeed I try to do the same, but if we wanted someone more community orientated and with the presence, and based on that criteria alone, I would have picked out Leon as filling that role. Do I think Leon should be a BC? No, not at all, even if J does see him as the 'Head Admin'.
Secondly, I wish for you to consider the precedent you are setting for others. One should not be applying for BC unless we are in dire need. Ausir - founded the Vault, obvious. Porter21 - the God of all programmers, again an obvious choice. GTM - one of the very first large scale editors, when there weren't many, a decent choice. GA - Expansion meant the need for another programmer who was also a heavy hitter, and GA filled that role. KC and J - Needed in a time of crisis, and were both long standing and respectable members of the wiki. All of these were necessary and did not set a lethal precedent. You guys have none of the circumstances of these guys, and I'm sorry but I wouldn't consider either of you as 'there' edit wise either. I mean, Rob, you only have 1100 article edits; barely enough to be an admin and that has barely risen since you gained adminship. People should not be power grabbing the way they are, it makes no sense. It's hardly as if J and KC can't handle their duties.
Next, this is not a cursus honorum, an honours race or a ladder of offices if you will. Think of adminship as the consulship, with the role of BCs as the Censors, exemplar pro-consuls who are separate from the 'ladder' with no definite way of gaining their office. There is no natural progression from admin to BC and it makes no sense to have it otherwise. There is no need for BC powers to be given to more than a few users. Even if one considers mediation part of their role, there will inevitably be a conflict of wills if everyone is allowed to reach that status. Look at the wiki at the moment, you can barely hardly the staunch opinions of the current admins, and BCs provide the final say and a port in the storm. If they start to disagree, where will we be?
Basically, I think this was a horrible idea, and the yes votes presented are obviously not well considered and are notably from people who have not been here long, who I'm guessing see this as a progression from Al's quote. I'm sorry guys, and don't take it personally, but no-one else needs to be a BC. Φύλαξ [~μίλησε μου~] 18:43, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

TwoBears has pulled out, and contacted me over facebook, telling me to recant his application in his name. He'll be filling you in shortly. Also, Ci "Unlike Al, I will say all I feel that needs to be said" - care to enlighten me? Hugs MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

I do believe he is referring to this comment Anyway, before I go off track with a long rant about how this is bleeeeh. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 20:48, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I should really remember what I write XD. Hugs MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!" 20:50, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
WOW! You guys sure stirred up a lot of people with this. This is insane. Bacon-Man Talk to me goose! 20:53, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
Precisely GA, you are a psychic now too? When was that built in? Yes Al, that's what I meant :) Φύλαξ [~μίλησε μου~] 21:09, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
Well you did set the scene so eloquently, I felt like I was inside your head at the time of writing. P.S. use a single spoon of sugar in the tea next time, it was to sweet for my taste =P. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 21:18, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
Hahahahaha, I can but try! XD Φύλαξ [~μίλησε μου~] 23:59, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

@Clyde: I'm not saying that you're inactive. I'm saying that you're not in-touch with the community. A community leader should know the community that it makes decisions for. I hardly see you in chat, despite the fact that I'm often in chat in my spare time. You don't use blogs, as you've said yourself. If you're going to make decisions for the community, you need to know the community.
@Nemesis & Mystery: We knew the odds.
@Scar & Ghost: I've already talked to you guys about it.
@HawK: It's not a joke.
@KiwiBird: Once upon a time, this Wiki was primarily based on editing. But that's changed. That's why we have blogs, chats, all that stuff. But I'm afraid the majority of admins and our two bureaucrats are too busy editing to realise that there's a whole community that needs to be heard. We can't just continue listening to the admins and the respected users. Everyone needs a say, even the anons. If you don't know the community, how can you be sure that the votes of only a select group of users is beneficial?
@Guardian: I'm still afraid you don't see the point of this. It's not a power grab. It's a shift to focus on the community, the only thing that keeps this place alive. I'm not saying Ryan and I are the best for this job, but who else was going to step up?
@Limmiegirl: Yes, we're not great at the editing aspect. But there's also a large emphasis on the people of this Wiki that I feel is majorly overlooked by our current leaders. Yeah, they're great editors. But do they know what the common user cares about?
@Everyone else: Don't take this as an attack on our leadership, and don't feel like we'll harbour any ill-will towards you. We just want people to open their eyes to the fact that there is a major rift in the community between the respected users and the common users.
We never intended any harm to anyone, and we never saw this as a power-grab or anything arrogant. It seems that we've gone about this the wrong way, but all we wanted was for people to listen. I apologise for all this, and I'll be closing my poll. But I want you all to think about the message we're trying to spread here. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 00:22, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Bear's Closing of poll

First off, I would like to apologize for the tardiness of a statement. I am only able to to access the internet via a mobile device at school, and needless to say, the mobile version of this site is not so great. Wow. I have watched my reputation go from a good standing to nothing in a few short hours. Oh well, reflecting back, I won't speak for Rob, but this was a very poor decision. It sure wasn't worth all of this. I agree with all of the no votes. One thing I do not agree with, the fact that I am running a popularity contest. You guys are making it sound like I'm the dumb quarterback at school running for student body president. I may not be fit to be a bureaucrat, and I realize that, but never say that any credibility that I have based solely on my popularity in chat. I have dedicated myself to this wiki and for the good of that, and it angers me quite so. --Bunny2Bubble 21:46, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

TwoBears, you earned your admin rank, or at least I feel so. I hope others agree. Agent c 21:52, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is angry at this, which I don't know why they would be, then let them be angry at me. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 23:43, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
I can't imagine why anyone would actually be angry at this, unless it were a prank. Ill timed? Maybe. Not completely thought out? Possibly, hell if I know. But a reason to make someone angry? I submit that anyone truly angry over this has serious anger issues. All you guys did was ask the community if they supported the idea of you becoming BCs. You got your answer, but there should be nothing inherently wrong with asking. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg 23:56, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
You'll note how I excluded any mention of popularity. It's clear from your personalities that that would never be the case, and you have ever right to be annoyed. But please, avoid taking it to heart, there are enough fractures as it is :). And Rob, we have nothing to be angry about, so don't make yourself a target for criticism. Φύλαξ [~μίλησε μου~] 00:03, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your reputation really took a hit at all. Personally, I don't see you any different. This was something ambitious, audacious, and I appreciate you for taking that risk and say what you feel like needs to be said. -ΣΔLet's talk! 01:12, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that I agree with Sigma that I doubt your reputation has taken it for the worse because of this. You are respected users and you will remain that way even if you two were a tad over-ambitious with this whole duo request. As for the popularity contest comments... I won't speak for the others, but in no way was I accusing you two of running for this position because you both knew you would win in a landslide popularity vote. I was hardly even speaking about the both of you, I was more talking to the vast majority of yes votes that were before mine and because they were almost all chat fiends and nothing more. I only mentioned it because it seems like a lot of times we have a vote-in for a new Admin/Mod and you end up seeing a lot of votes from people who hardly have any idea of anything going on outside of chat, they're just voting because they happen to like the person in question. I don't approve of that at all and that's what most of the votes were looking like at first and I was worried it would continue that way. I think if you re-read my comments you'd see that I meant no animosity towards the both of you and I wasn't accusing you two of anything aside from pulling an Icarus. You two do a wonderful job at being Admins and I don't view you any different because of this. But do I think you two are ready to step up as bureaucrats? No, I don't to be truthful. Hell, I honestly don't think anyone here aside from our current 'crats have the drive and know-how to become one. I think the closest one might be Ci, seeing that he has the most technical know-how of any of us that remained here at Nukapedia. Just don't take this too personally and don't take this as a sign of us losing faith in you two. Dragon Skål! 02:08, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Yes-Man's Closing of poll

I think it's time I stopped here. I just hope our current bureaucrats listen and try to get the community more involved, or alternatively inspire someone else to step up and make a change. Clyde, Jspoel, this is nothing personal. It's just that I don't like where this Wiki is going. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 00:25, March 17, 2012 (UTC)