Brickipedia:Requests for Chat Moderator

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki
Revision as of 18:38, 28 October 2012 by 1999bug (talk | contribs) (→‎Support)

Requests: Chat Moderator - Administrator - Bureaucrat - Patroller

This is Brickipedia's requests for chat moderator page, on which any user may request chat moderator rights. Chat moderators have the ability to kick and ban users from chat who are being disruptive.

If you are considering nominating yourself for chat moderator, 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. 

===replace this with your username===
{{Rfr/1|replace this with your username}}
replace this with a brief paragraph about why you want to be nominated. ~~~~
====Support====
#
====Neutral====
====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. Most requests last for around a week, unless there is clear consensus either way after a short period of time.

If a user has been nominated for chat moderator 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

Shaddowwarrior016

Shaddowwarrior016 (Talk - Contribs - Block/rights logs - Logs) - ( edits, 0 mainspace)

Shaddow is a good member of the community, and is mature enough for these tools, and we need more mods on at the times he is on. User:CzechMate/czech 05:40, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nominator --User:CzechMate/czech 05:40, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
  2. After talking with him on chat a few times and looking at his records, he seems fit for the job. And, like Czech said, we need more mods at the times he is on. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge
  3. Did some research... Supporting. User:Sonofhades101/signature 19:26, October 19, 2012 (UTC)LazerzSoH
  4. Per Jeyo. User:1999bug/sig1 18:23, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

*(edit conflict, Clig :P) He's on at a time when no one else is, that's why nobody here knows him. I've talked with him a few times, but don't know him well enough to support. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge

Oppose

Comments

  • User accepted via chat --User:CzechMate/czech 05:40, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • What time of day is he usually on? Because he seems to have a lot of edits, but, according to the "Neutral" section, not many people know him. If it's at a time when nobody's on, this might continue to be the case and no progress would be made on the matter.--75.152.174.102 18:08, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Korpuffin

Korppufin (Talk - Contribs - Block/rights logs - Logs) - (0 edits, 90 mainspace)

I got expirience with spammers like tanselous,and i can easy make them leave. But i dont have a better way saying why i should get nominated.But i am active at chat when there is not mutch nominated people as a watcher. User:Sonofhades101/signature 16:49, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Support

Neutral

  1. No description of why and Koppufins's an ok user but I don't trust him enough/see him having a need for this right. Clone gunner commander jedi talk
  2. Not on chat enough to know for sure. I don't know if as you put it, "changed".
  3. He's a good person, but he's not someone that has too many experiences in others spamming. User:Awesomeknight1234/SigbyCP
  4. Not on chat enough to know for sure. I don't know if as you put it, "changed".User:LazerzSoH/signature
  5. Per Clone gunner commander Jedi. User:Irnakk/sig
  6. Per Irnakk (easier name to type). Berrybrick 18:50, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Per Berry. User:Legoboy9373/sig 10:10, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
  8. I hardly see him on chat and when I do, I don't notice much activity. A moderator has to be on quite a bit. User:1999bug/sig1 18:19, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I'm actually opposing this one, because I think Korp isn't ready, and isn't exactly great at his English, though it is improving. --User:CzechMate/czech 05:42, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Awesomeknight1234

Awesomeknight1234 (Talk - Contribs - Block/rights logs - Logs) - ( edits, 0 mainspace)

Before any of you oppose, I hope you read this instead of coming up with an insignificant reason for doing so. Awesomeknight is a great friend and user who was one of our better mods when he had the rights. I'm sure some of you are confused as to why he had the rights removed, but honestly, it wasn't as big of a deal as it seemed. But I might as well explain why Knight had these rights removed, to keep this nomination legitimate.

  • A user (Whom I will be keeping anonymous, just in case.) was causing havoc and angering various users, which included Knight. Even I was being bothered by this user, on occasion. Although it continued, there wasn't much we could do as he wasn't personally attacking anyone directly or anything else ban-worthy. This was very confusing to us and it never ceased, simply dragging on.
  • Knight, not realizing the jeopardy it would cause, spammed the user's wiki with hate messages. Admittedly, he told me and I never even considered the risk he was taking. I don't wish to be blamed, but do take in account that he told multiple people who could have easily stopped him. I would also like to point out that this message is known as "The World's Worst Insult" (Not as bad as it sounds.) a well-known internet meme, not something he came up with to directly insult the user.
  • Although we are not supposed to take into account of users' actions on other wikis, the administrators thought this threat was a little much and somewhat ridiculous. I'm not trying to say their judgement was wrong, but maybe it would be better if it remains temporary and we let Knight regain his user rights.

So, if you think Knight deserves these rights, go ahead and support. If you don't, feel absolutely free to oppose. Or just stay neutral. Whichever way you choose, please consider the above. As far as I know, I didn't leave out any major details that could change your decision.

Knight supports this, but I am the one who is "nominating" him. If anything, don't shoot this down because you think he wanted me to do it. </textwall> User:1999bug/sig1 22:28, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nominator. User:1999bug/sig1 22:28, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

Oppose

  1. I don't care if it was a meme or what it was. It was nasty. Also, we try to stop spam, not promote it. User:Darth henry/Sig 22:48, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
  2. I am pretty sure I know who you are talking about, and I had half a mind to block him for lying about certain things, but what Knight did was still wrong. Per Henry about the meme. Yes, you are right that what happens on one wiki is not supposed to effect what happens on another, but vandalism is vandalism anywhere and it shows that when a person doesn't feel like they are being watched, they are perfectly fine with breaking rules. They should not be blocked here for it, but it makes it harder to trust them. Berrybrick 22:56, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Well, here's the thing. You've brought up, and (almost) justified one of the two reasons everyone has opposed him before. However, you've completely ignored the second, which is, to the best of my knowledge, still relevant. I will lay it down thus: Knight has strong opinions. There's nothing wrong with this. The problem, however, arises whenever anybody happens to talk about something he doesn't like for one reason or another. (the two main offenders being "Kingdumbs" and "Minecrap".) While Knight is perfectly amicable most of the time, it is impossible for him to let other people's views on the subjects he dislikes (that is, the fact that other actually like them) lie unchallenged, and he will get into long and pointless arguments on the subject. For an example, see this blog. Incidentally, this other blog was posted relatively recently, but, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't really stopped this habit much, although he does usually manage to be quiet when people speak on Chat. Still, is somebody who finds it "hard for me not to insult them while the conversation is going" somebody we want with the ability to ban people at will, even if he has developed the maturity to admit it?
Also, it is worth noting that, when Knight had ChatMod powers before, he was involved in the great "Let's ban the Chatlog Bot" plot that led to the bot gaining chatmod rights to prevent banning. I don't actually really remember much about the incident, but it is worth note. User:Cligra/Sig
  1. Per everyone above, I don't see him being tolerant enough to be acceptable to have the right. Clone gunner commander jedi talk
  2. PA. ~ CJC 23:15, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
  3. You've brought up some of the bad parts of Knight in those statements, and remember - bombs are a real threat in modern society. The amount of times he'll do something immature is high, and the blogs about Kingdoms, and other stuff he doesn't like. I'd like a mod to be more tolerant of things, or statements they disagree on. His strong opinions are known to hurt feelings - face it: The world doesn't revolve around you and your opinions. He's vandalised a wiki, sure, maybe not a big one, but is was for revenge, which cannot be tolerated. And Cligra's statement about the "ban the chat bot" is bad too, the bot just logs chat. Being blocked for that PA against CJC, too. I just cannot support this request. --User:CzechMate/czech 00:39, October 28, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the only offense I was aware of was the one I covered above. If anything, this should be ended now, as I had no clue about the PA towards CJC or the other issues. And yes, Knight does has very biased opinions, but hating on certain subjects (Such as Kingdoms) isn't a very relevant point toward the opposition of this appeal, though subject to controversy. The people who let the arguments go on are just as relentless when it comes to their side. Like I said above, I was very unaware of most of these offenses and don't want to drag this on further. Please, by all means, close this. User:1999bug/sig1 18:16, October 28, 2012 (UTC)
  1. Per everyone. User:Irnakk/sig2 --Long Live The Ewoks! (the caps sound cool in that way :P )

Comments

  • This is beyond embarrassing, as I had no idea about a lot of this stuff. User:1999bug/sig1 18:37, October 28, 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.brickimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brickipedia:Requests_for_Chat_Moderator&oldid=679661"