Brickipedia:Requests for Adminship

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki
Revision as of 01:46, 21 February 2013 by 1999bug (talk | contribs) (→‎Support)

Requests: Chat Moderator - Administrator - Bureaucrat - Patroller

This is Brickipedia's requests for adminship page, on which any user may request administrator rights. Administrators have many technical abilities that are used for the maintenance and upkeep of Brickipedia, and a full list of all of the user rights that they have access to can be found at Special:ListGroupRights.

While being an administrator may seem "fun" or "cool", you should consider whether or not you actually have a use for sysop rights before filing a request. Administrators should be active users on Brickipedia with a few thousand contributions who have a good understanding of policies and community discussions here. While being an administrator is not a big deal, it is a significant time commitment, and takes a lot of work. If you are considering nominating yourself for adminship, please read through the checklist to make sure that you meet the criteria.

To file a request, place the following code under the "current requests" header, above any existing requests.

There is an archive here for adminship requests. 

===replace this with your username===
{{Rfr/1|replace this with your username}}
Replace this with a brief blurb about why you are requesting adminship here. ~~~~
====Support====
#
====Oppose====
#
====Comments====
*

Requests made on this page are a vote, meaning that if they achieve at least 80% support then they will be closed as successful. Opposers must provide reasons for opposing. All request will last a minimum of two weeks.

If a user has been nominated for adminship before, add 2 to the end of the topic header. For users with multiple requests, add the respective number of the request. It is also considered good practice to link to previous requests for rights when nominating a user.

Current requests

1999bug

1999bug (Talk - Contribs - Block/rights logs - Logs) - (1,928 edits, 557 mainspace)

Bug has now been an active user on this wiki for nearly two years, and he's quickly gained a lot of maturity during this time. He's a very active chat moderator, forum member, and blog user. He would be a great help with keeping away spam, making sure everything is going smoothly, and that everyone is following our policies. Drewlzoo 20:58, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination, Drew and hello to anyone reading this.
As stated above, I am an extremely active user who has been here for almost two years. I'm not the most avid editor to the wiki, but I tend to pace myself and look for information that is definitely needed and not excess. Sure, I may not be the best editor but I am extremely involved with the community and I'd be willing to partake in nearly anything if it meant the satisfaction of my fellow Brickipedians, whom I consider friends. My involvement with the wiki is key and my lack of edits may be an issue, but do recall that I know how things work.
Being a moderator and patroller has confronted me with plenty of issues over the course of time I've had the rights; Spammers and vandals are nothing new to me, I've confronted them numerous times. I might not be the first to find an issue on a page, but that doesn't mean I won't take action if I do.
My main issue is my mentality, I feel like the rights should come to me, not the other way around. If this nomination fails, I'll just wait for the day that I need the rights for the sake of the wiki. If this nomination does pass, then I will definitely use the rights to the wiki's advantage rather than my own and I'll be ready for any forthcoming issues as well as unforeseen ones.
Lastly, I'd like to thank all of you that have helped me get this far, I never imagined I'd actually be partaking in a nomination for administrative rights. Please feel free to leave an oppose or support, either way it is for the greater good of the wiki. Kind regards to all of you, - 1999bug - Contributions - Talk page

Support

  1. Drewlzoo
  2. Um, definitely. While he isn't really active in mainspace, he is mature and can protect against spam. User:Darth henry/Sig 21:16, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Per Drew. User:Awesomeknight1234/SigbyCP
    #I guess. Good luck, Bug! :) --LEGO2013Helper (talk) 21:29, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. He's nice, kind, honest and really deserves the position! User:Legodude101/sig
  5. Per Darth and Legodude. User:Irnakk/sig
  6. User:LazerzSoH/signature
    Reason, or the vote will be struck. --User:CzechMate/czech 05:34, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
    You may want to read the current URR criteria at the top of the page- it clearly states a reason must be supplied for opposing, but there is no such rule listed for supporting. NovaHawk 06:46, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
    So I don't have to give a reason? I'm taking lessons from LSC, I am silent as a ninja. User:LazerzSoH/signature
  7. I'll support. 1999Bug is definitely mature enough for the job and he's been here for quite a while. My only concern is his low count of mainspace edits. User:Dataman1/Sig 2 16:00, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
  8. While the low edit count does concern me a bit, I still believe that Bug is knowledgeable and mature enough for the job. User:BrickfilmNut/sig
  9. Changed my mind, I do think that Bug has the potential. User:ErkelonJay/sig
  10. Truly been around long enough to deserve this right. May lack in some mainspace edits presently, but I have confidence Bug would make up for it soon. -User:Power Jim/sigcode 07:25, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
  11. Phantabulous user. Support. Stormbringer Empire791 (talk) 01:36, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

# Bug is certainly one of the more level-headed users here and I have no doubt that he would be good at the job. However, his mainspace edits come around to below 400, a number that, in my opinion, should be quite a bit more before I support. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 21:31, February 6, 2013 (UTC) (Moved to oppose)

  1. I agree with Jeyo, sorry Bug. User:LSCStealthNinja/RealSig
  2. RaceLord talk, Time To Craft Some...Thing.

# I just came to edit a program glitch.. it's 8 support to 8 oppose, and I don't feel like tipping the scales yet, since I haven't been on for very long. User:ErkelonJay/sig

Oppose

  1. Sorry, but per Jeyo NovaHawk 22:01, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. A large amount of what an admin does is in the mainspace, and I'd want any user who could potentially be deleting content to know what good content is in the first place. Adminship definitely shouldn't be a reward for content work, but I'd like to see a broad understanding of Brickipedia before. As a side note for RfAs right now in general, what we will need on the new site is content creators, not admins. And what we could really use right now is someone or some people starting a centralized revamp of our policies - that isn't something that I'm going to start. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:08, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
    • Why does a user need to have multiple MS edits to get admin? I mean yes it is pretty important but not all important. Plus he wouldn't go around deleting stuff. I'm assuming he knows what's the difference from a good page and a bad page. He's been here forever. User:Darth henry/Sig 03:12, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
      • A user certainly doesn't need mainspace edits to become an admin, but when seeking a role which is primarily content control, I'd like to see lots of relevant experience. Like below, though, full support for him being an admin on the new customs wiki. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:32, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  3. ^ klagoer 23:08, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Per Jeyo and Ajr, but when/if (I am assuming we are) we get separate admins for the customs namespace, I would definitely support that right away. Berrybrick 01:39, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
    ^ NovaHawk 01:54, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Bug is certainly one of the more level-headed users here and I have no doubt that he would be good at the job. However, his mainspace edits come around to below 400, a number that, in my opinion, should be quite a bit more before I support. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 21:31, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
    • ^This happened with my patroller request. We should really say the required edits need to be mainspace. This low mainspace edit problem happens too often. BrikkyyTalk
      • That's more of a common sense thing than anything, Brikky. --User:CzechMate/czech 08:11, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Per ajr --User:CzechMate/czech 06:42, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
    #I remember he had some inappropriate userboxes on his page that I made him take down. I don't think that admins should have to be asked to do something like that. BrikkyyTalk
    • I'm sorry if this is too much to ask, but I think this oppose should be struck or at least changed. There was only one userbox and it only existed because I failed to notice it when transferring older userboxes onto my page. I willingly removed the userbox without even questioning you, so please don't act like I intended to offend you. It wasn't exactly inappropriate, either. The other opposes I respect, but this isn't a very valid reason for opposition. - Bug
      • Valid point. Struck. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 21:00, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
        • Unstruck - it is an incredibly nit-picky point, but it isn't an all-out attack or harassment or something which I would consider a valid reason to completely discredit and remove it. When closing this request, I (or another bureaucrat) am not going to consider it the difference between passing or not. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:58, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
          • Re-struck (2 against 1 :P we should have a vote about a vote :D) Out of the hundreds (possibly thousands) of views on Bug's page durng the 18 months he had the userbox up, one single person was offended by it. And he wasn't "made" to remove it, he was asked to, and he did so, just because that one person was offended by it. The userbox wasn't racist/defamatory/some sort of personal attack in any way, so how is it a valid reason to oppose? NovaHawk 01:48, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
            • Just to clarify, I wasn't acting like you intended to offend you, I'm just saying an admin shouldn't have had to be asked to remove that, or even have that up there in the first place... --Brikkyy13 (talk) 07:03, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
            • Fair enough. I never like striking votes, though... and honestly, if we strike oppose votes like that, we should be striking all of the support votes too since they make no mention of what exactly would make him a good admin :P. Maybe a discussion for another day. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:56, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Per Ajr. User:Legoboy9373/sig 08:22, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Sorry Bug. I really would've supported you, but these guys make good points. --LEGO2013Helper (talk) 22:40, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Per ajr. ~ CJC 20:22, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

  • Indeed. - Bug
Retrieved from "https://en.brickimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brickipedia:Requests_for_Adminship&oldid=676890"