The Sims Wiki:Requests for bureaucratship

Currently, requests for bureaucratship are open.

This is the page where formal requests for bureaucratship are recorded and archived. Bureaucrats are users who can add rollback, sysop and bureaucrat flags to other users, and remove rollback and sysop flags. On, all bureaucrats also hold a sysop flag.

Requirements
There are no concrete requirements for a user to be a bureaucrat, except that the user must already be an admin. However, bureaucrats will usually:
 * Be among the biggest contributors to the wiki
 * Be highly trusted by the community over a long period of time

Procedures

 * Users must have 50 edits and be a regular contributor for a month to be able to vote or nominate.
 * Users who have been absent for extended periods of time (3 months or more) will be considered as "new users" for the purposes of RfB and must make 50 edits and be contributor for a further month before voting.
 * Users must have adminship to be able to be made a bureaucrat.
 * Admins and bureaucrats may vote on a nomination. However, a bureaucrat who votes on a nomination and later reviews the nomination must review according to the vote result, not their personal opinion of the nominee.

Stage 1: Nominating

 * 1) Users may nominate themselves or be nominated by another user for bureaucratship. The nominee then has to accept the nomination. Self-nominations must be supported by at least one other user who meets the minimum qualifications for nominating a bureaucrat, within one week of a nomination.
 * 2) Users cannot nominate each other in the same RfB.
 * 3) There will only be one request at a time. A decision will be made on the current request (change/no change) before the next request is considered.
 * 4) Bureaucrat candidates that are not given bureaucrat privileges are ineligible to be nominated or to nominate themselves for at least a month.

Stage 2: Voting

 * 1) Users may vote in support, be neutral, or oppose the bureaucratship nomination. Users must provide a reason behind their position.
 * 2) Everyone's vote counts as one vote. Admins do not hold extra power.
 * 3) The vote will last for one week.
 * 4) At the end of the week, a bureaucrat will determine whether consensus has been reached. This means that bureaucrat requests require at least a two-thirds support rate to pass. Strength of argument is more important than the number of votes.

LostInRiverview

 * Voting and discussion of promotion is open until 03:53, July 26, 2012 (UTC) - Countdown: 

Nomination
I, Woganhemlock, nominate LostInRiverview for the position of bureaucrat here on, as with the upcoming release of Supernatural as well as the steady growth of the wiki, not to mention the fact that several bureaucrats at the current time are somewhat sporadic at times in terms of activity. As well as this, LiR has had prior experience as a bureaucrat before his brief retirement, and remains one of the largest contributors on this wiki in terms of community and administration.
 * I accept the nomination. Please ask me any questions and I will respond to them. Thanks for the consideration. --  LiR speak ~ read 03:53, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support - I do realise that we are in somewhat of a position in which we have enough staff, but the way in which I see it we can't really have such a thing as "too many crats". I myself don't know how much longer I will be able to be here for due to my schoolwork next year. The way I see it, if we have someone who knows what they are doing, I see no issue in giving them the flags, and based on the growth of this wiki it won't be too long before we open RfB's if I hadn't done this. I would have never bothered with this nomination if I did not believe in it. I've read the comments below and I do see that some see LiR's attitude as somewhat of a problem, but the truth is we all have flaws. To me I see him as the same person who was very much capable of the position last year. I'm not afraid to admit that at times I have made mistakes, and I can recall times in which other admins have as well. All of the statements below stem from LiR's passion towards the wiki, which I see as a good thing. Maybe working a bit with that is something he should do, I admit, but given he knows what he's doing and has had the tools before his retirement, I see no reason why this shouldn't be approved.
 * 2) Support - I changed my vote because Wogan made a strong point and because LiR explained himself well. Everybody makes mistakes, and I make them too, so, there's no reason for me opposing this request. LiR even showed that he was willing to work his attitude if it was a problem. His experience as an admin and bureaucrat is also valueable and I realized I was wrong. So, I support now. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 10:26, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support - In my opinion, and just like WH said above, there is no "too much staff" situation, because if we are already fully staffed, I see no reason for the RfBs to be open. Also, there is the old saying that says "The more, the merrier". Now, onto my opinions about LiR: He has been a 'crat already, so he knows how to handle the extra functions, because he seemed to work fine as a crat and there was no motives to worry. He is a worthy editor and a very experienced one. About his "behaviour issues", I believe that people make mistakes and they can change. If he is willing to not repeat his past troubles, I have abosolutely no problem with it, so I guess he should be promoted. 23:20, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Vehement Oppose - Personally I don't actually think we need any more bureaucrats (we've got 4 actives as well as myself who should be back "full time" on Sunday when I return to England) but this isn't the reason for my opposition, prepare for a long read. The reason for my opposition is based on my concerns with LiR's attitude being very poor at times. A notable example includes this forum thread where LiR made a potentially offensive comment aimed at IRC users in general and making baseless accusations. He may have apologized but that's not everything. Fairly recently, LiR's statement which reads, "I know when something is definitely right and when something is definitely wrong", makes LiR come across as considering himself to be "perfect" and stuck up. I'll admit I was in the wrong for that situation but the wrong set of words can mean the difference between having a negative attitude and having a positive mindset. In addition, LiR often overreacts over little things, based upon a random quote from the IRC stats page I once saw that read, "if I get pinged again I am kickbanning all the bots"; I hate being pinged too and I've set my client to not receive pings from bots but threatening to kickban all of them because of one bot or one person making use of a bot is severely jumping the gun. Finally, in a well meant proposal, it seems that LiR has an issue with the community's views on something with the comment, "I'm disappointed that this idea isn't even being considered seriously", considering that everyone did consider the idea seriously and mentioned the past, meaning this seemingly isn't assuming good faith on LiR's part. I know that LiR's heart is in the right place and I don't mean anything personally but I can't ignore LiR's recent attitude problems; he really needs to think before he acts. I may think this vote over but for now, I'm sticking with this and full disclosure: I didn't /want/ to oppose. 08:50, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
(There's no real place for discussion here, so I've created one rather than put it in the voting columns.)

As you know, I can be a lengthy writer as well, so prepare for an even longer read, as I'll be going through the points brought up item-by-item. If you need to use the restroom, I'd suggest you do it now.

First off, the case about having 'enough' active bureacurats is a personal opinion of anyone. I believe there's no such thing as too many, and there's no harm in having more, so long as they're qualified and active, etc.

IRC Behavior forum thread - I have no defense for my initial comments except to repeat what I had said at the time - to me it looked like a re-hashing of previous arguments that I didn't want to have to deal with, so I replied while in a bad mood. I guarantee that I'm not the only one that did that in that discussion (for example, "Honestly I am becoming increasingly sick of all this crap... I don't want any further commentary on this pathetic waste of time, k?"), and when I had a chance to take a break, stand back and re-read the discussion I realized I was in the wrong and I apologized, which was the right thing to do. I know I'm not the first and won't be the last to make that mistake in a wiki discussion, either.

'''"I know when something is definitely right..." Discussion''' - Never mind the topic of that conversation, as it's really not relevant to my point now. It doesn't take a person of perfection to realize when something just should or shouldn't be, and I was trying to make a point that there was something that just shouldn't be happening. No one at the time took any issue with my choice of wording.

"...Kickbanning all the bots" comment - Clearly that was a baseless threat, similar to others I've heard from ops in the IRC (something like 'the next person to say walrus is getting -v' comes to mind). Those who know my IRC skills also likely know I wouldn't be able to kickban the bots even if I wanted to (there's something about hostmasks and all that which I just don't get... whatever).

'''"I'm disappointed that this idea..." comment''' - The discussion after I made the proposal (to reactivate Achievements) quickly devolved into a repeating of the same issues - real or imagined - that were brought up when they were originally shut down in 2010. My comment was based on the idea that perhaps people should be trying to think more outside the box in considering the idea of achievements, something that I myself was attempting to do since I did oppose, and generally still don't support, their implementation. I can't figure how this can be construed to mean that I'm not AGF, I was simply suggesting that people might be better suited to take a step back and evaluate the present circumstances in addition to past discussions and personal beliefs/opinions/knowledge. I was not implying in any way that people weren't giving the discussion a chance, or that people were acting in bad faith in any way.

I will admit to a few things. I'm passionate - I will form an opinion about things and will say things to advance that position. But, I like to think that I'm also flexible to alternative opinions or ideas of doing things. I like participating in and trying to move along discussions, and I know that my approach is somewhat direct, which may be off-putting to some. Except for the IRC behavior discussion, I like to think I've kept my cool as well as anyone else on the wiki, even if I personally disagreed with someone's opinion or the decision of the community. Even if I disagreed with a community decision, I would work to uphold that opinion when performing my duties.

Passion in discussions should not be a reason to deny any person an opportunity to lend further services to the wiki. I'm not going through discussions saying 'You're wrong and everything you say is stupid' after all. I'm involved and I'm passionate because I truly care about the direction the community takes in its decisions, and I want to see this project be as successful as it can possibly be. I'm the same passionate person that I was when I was first unanimously approved to become a bureaucrat, and I think I pretty well proved the first time around that no matter what my opinion, I will work for the community to the best of my ability. If my previous record as a bureaucrat and my record as an administrator don't demonstrate this, there's nothing that will.

--  LiR speak ~ read 16:47, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't remember anyone saying "the next person to say walrus is getting -v", but yet, I haven't been much on the IRC. About the other things, I think I understand them now, but sometimes you seem to act a bit arrogant. However, whether that is a barrier to you becoming a bureaucrat can be subjective. I don't know, I'm kind of doubtful. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 17:14, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I do see how being passionate could translate into being arrogant. If that is true, then it's a flaw in myself that I have to work on but I don't think that should be a deciding factor in this decision. Everyone has flaws, after all, and any arrogance I may have had has never caused me to improperly perform my job. --  LiR speak ~ read 17:44, July 19, 2012 (UTC)