FANDOM


I am officially requesting administrative abilities for this wiki (again). It’s up to the community’s discretion to approve or disapprove my request, specifically the bureaucrats, and I ask that you please read the following in which I have spelled out why I feel it would be appropriate for me to become an administrator and responded to criticisms that came up in my last request in late October.

Edit Count

Type of edits Edit count
Total 4,325
Article 2,609
Talk 140
User 229
User talk 639
Fallout Wiki 43
Fallout Wiki talk 4
File 240
File talk 0
Template 34
Template talk 0
Module 0
Module talk 0
Category 1
Category talk 2
User blog 12
User blog comment 41
Blog 0
Blog talk 0

As an anonymous user, I’ve made an additional 2,382 edits for a total of 4,385 as of 12/25

Criticisms

I’ve found three main criticisms from my last request:

1. I don’t use my account enough
2. I’m not active enough in the community
3. My dealings with other users (e.g. talkpage messages, edit summaries) need improvement

1. This is no longer an issue; aside from occasional edits while not logged in, I’ve been editing from my account ever since the last request.

2. I never feel this was a concerning issue. In order to completely represent the community, the administrative team must represent all members of our community; as such, it is necessary to have a diverse team of editors from different parts of the wiki, each with a unique set of skills. Not all users here are focused on blogs, forums, or chat, and I represent these people. Our goal as editors is to make Nukepedia the most complete encyclopedia of Fallout-related content not providing the most entertaining atmosphere for Fallout fans.

3. I find this concern the most important. I haven’t always been as friendly or approachable as other users/current administrators, but I’m focusing more on improving this ever since it was brought up in my last request. I am, however, always willing to explain my actions if contacted on my talk page, or if someone has questioned me in an edit summary. I’ve never shied away from any explanations, and I will never do so. Edit summaries, I feel, are also no longer an issue.

UPDATE: Why I asked for my Patroller rights to be removed

One of the most prominent criticisms in this forum stems from my recent two-day absence. Most people have not read the discussion or asked about and instead have determined that I may not be fully committed. Here is a brief summary of why I left and asked for my rights to be removed: (Some of this has already been said in the discussion, but here's the complete story)

When I first came here, I primarily focused on fixing character infoboxes and adding content from the GECK. In recent months, it's been less necessary to correct data, and we've made major progress with the character infobox project. Without as strong a need for GECK-related material, I felt my activity declining, and I had been considering just taking a break- something that Dead Gunner's request set me off to do.

"Figured saying something would be better than just never showing up again" simply means that I wanted my rights removed while I took some time away because I wouldn't need them; I didn't know how long I'd be gone (turned out to be just a short amount of time), so I didn't feel any need to have my rights while I was away; I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't want to give off the impression that I could be reached for help due to my patroller status.

I knew that most people would just post something on their userpage saying that they were going to take a break while retaining their rights, but I just didn't see a need to keep them; given my dislike for keeping rights when not around, I felt it would be best to remove my rights until further notice (i.e. until I return).

I understand now asking for my rights to be taken away was a mistake; it would have been easier for everyone if I just said something on my userpage, and if I ever want to go away for a bit again, that's what I'll do. I have, however, found something new to do: gathering images for generic characters. I've covered Great Khans, Wastelanders, and some Enclave characters, and I intend to get more images soon.

Me asking for my rights to be removed because I wouldn't need them due to time away from the wiki does not show a lack of commitment; people have taken breaks before, and I just didn't see the need to hold on to any rights during mine; this, however, I now see was a mistake and not the best course of action I could have taken. 69.l25 (talk) 16:50, December 27, 2013 (UTC)

Goals

1 .Continue to patrol edits but with new administrative powers that enable take action against vandalism; my frequent activity would better help to cut down on vandalism, especially in early hours when our current administrative team is largely absent.

2. Serve as a mediator when needed; I feel I’ve shown myself to not hold grudges and be open to dialogue/discussion at all times

3. Remain an active presence on this wiki in a time of lesser activity and absences from many administrators and serve to encourage adding new content

4. Use the administrators' toolset, which provides them with access to technical tools that I, as an editor who leans toward the technical side of the wiki, can use to better the content I'm putting out

Summary

I intend to represent editors who come here to focus on adding and improving content. Despite a few absences, I’ve been continuously active since I started editing in late April, and in such time, I’ve made about 4,300 edits, and I want people to be confident that I’ll continue to be such an active presence on this wiki, and the administrative toolset will help me add and perfect content. Please ask questions and voice your concerns below and look over my original request in case any of your questions have been addressed there or if you're looking for more insight. Thanks! 69.l25 (talk) 23:01, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Vote

Poll finished on 11:01 pm January 1, 2014 (UTC).
Poll
  • 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.

Yes Votes

  1. Icon check You've earned it I think. You'll make a fine admin. I'll be active again so I look forward to working with you. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 23:08, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Icon check You've shown an improvement in being more inviting and also in using your account. An admin in the early hours of morning would be welcome. --MountHail (talk) 23:46, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Icon check You're a great editor. You are dedicated to your work here and you know what you're doing. More importantly, you are willing to help others, compromise when you need to, and you have the tenacity to stick to your guns even in the face of controversy. So all of that along with your extensive knowledge of our policies/guidelines, I fully support you joining the Administrative ranks. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:38, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Icon check Refer to comment section below. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 02:27, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Icon check I changed my mind, you have a pretty good point about the community thing, and I can understand you on that, and as for conduct with new users, it seems you're working on that and are committed to improving it further. With those things aside, you'd be an invaluable addition to the site and a brilliant, dedicated administrator, so it's yes all the way from me. User Broccoli  OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  03:06, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Icon check Why not Dead Gunner's SMG JPG1 "Semper Invictus" 04:40, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Icon check I have to wonder a bit if I'm taking a chance here or not... But I did once on someone who seemed to walk away, and it worked out fine. You have the need for the tools, and with the removal of rights thing, at least you were willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk on not having rights you don't need. Agent c (talk) 20:46, December 27, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Icon check He filled an important gap left when the last technically inclined user left and the significance of that cannot be understated. He edits more and contributes more than most of the other admins. The nonsense brought up his account is just that, nonsense. The user in question is not needed on the community/chat side of things (chat is a separate entity from the encyclopedia anyways) as he has demonstrated a specialty with more important things. He has given reason to believe the administrator rights would benefit him in his work. I say 69.125 should be commended for handing over his rights as he has often displayed dismay over users not turning in their rights when they go inactive or take breaks, so he was only practicing what he preached. Do I agree with his ideas on that issue? Not really, but he is clearly committed. Sometimes I think too many people on this wiki are looking for perfection. Stars and Stripes (talk) 06:23, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Icon check Per aspera ad astra! --Skire (talk) 23:29, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Icon check After further consideration, I can confidently put my support behind this proposal. His technical knowledge is invaluable, and he has proven his qualification for the position. FollowersApocalypseLogomorituri te salutamus 01:07, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
  11. Icon check Your edits have been consistently very high quality and demonstrate a good level of knowledge. You've also got a good eye for detail. I think that, for the most part, you have been sincere about correcting the concerns that have been raised. I think that this promotion would be a worthwhile chance to take. --FFIX (talk) 21:31, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
  12. Icon check My reasons have not changed since October. --Kastera (talk) 01:43, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

No Votes

  1. Icon cross This is just me personally, but I am still rather concerned that you don't really care for your account (as you had to be talked in to making one and then talked in to using it) then I don't think that additional rights are for you. Sorry, you're a great editor and all but this is just how I feel. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 23:56, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Icon cross Great editor, nobody could deny that, but I've become disillusioned by your initial lack of interest to the idea of having an account, and your very recent hand in of your patroller rights. If this forum was created a few more weeks down the line, I might have put my vote in the yes column, but this was far too soon to make feel reliable in your commitment. Your past actions matter a heck of a lot, everything needs to be scrutinised in these requests, good or bad. Neko-signature Archmage NekoNeko's Haunt 01:30, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Icon cross I'm inclined to agree with the above. Had this request popped up in February I would have voted yes. You weren't beyond some improvement in the last application and I don't feel enough time has past for that improvement to have happened. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 19:00, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Icon cross My biggest concern with your admin request is not only the fact that it comes so closely on the heels of your last one, but also how closely it followed you attempting to resign from your position as a patroller due to what you felt was a lack of editing. To me, this shows that there might be some issues with dedication, and the last thing we need is an admin version of Ghost Avatar (a user who was granted bureaucrat rights and then left the wiki shortly there after, in case you didn't know), and given the attempt to resign that's what I fear might happen. As Ever stated above, if you had come back in say February, or hell, even mid-January, I probably would have voted yes, but an adminship request this soon after your last one as well as so closely on the heels of your attempt at resigning makes this a no vote from me. Richie9999 (talk) 22:26, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Icon cross Look, you are a great person and always helpful, but you just recently up and left and came back within a few days. To me that shows you were either mad about the discussion on rights and up and left or that you have no sentimental attachment to this wiki like everyone else has. Maybe give it a few months and try again and have some edits under your belt since your "resignation". Also, a bit of "community face" wouldn't hurt. We love to talk in chat! RangerSequoia "Some say this user used to be a Patroller..." Wiki 04:30, December 27, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Icon cross You just ran for admin, and after losing you didn't really rectify the problems you were already having. Furthermore, you retiring your rights shows your lack of commitment towards this wiki, no matter how you rationalize it. If you had waited a few more months before running again I probably would have been able to say yes, but as of right now you don't really need any of the rights that admin gives to continue editing. - Chris 4 Star Dragon Ball Edit 00:05, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Icon cross Being a great and prolific editor is, in my opinion, not the only thing that an Administrator should be. Yes, you contributed much to the wiki, but I still don't feel like you really have that much connection to the users here. If you worked harder on making a connection to the users (I'm not talking about being in chat, either) and being friendlier, I would have said yes, but I'm going to have to say no. Leea (talk)
  8. Icon cross Part of me hates to do this, but I feel the need to. You are a great editor, but parts of this request don't feel right to me. Especially since you are making this request not only a week after giving up your patroller rights but exactly 2 months after failing your last admin request. How are we supposed to see any improvement in that small amount of time? How am I supposed to believe you're ready for adminship when you keep making these requests when the bare minimal requirements are met? Paladin117>>iff bored; 05:08, December 30, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Icon cross i dunno bruh, you is cool and all, them edits legit as fuck ya heard, but i dunno if ya really fixed what has plagued ya, ya heard? so in light of all dis, i can't vote for ya, please don't turn into tezzla 2.0 dawg. happy new years. Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate 06:35, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Votes

  1. Icon neutral You have definitely shown improvement, but I'm still "iffy" on this request. I really wish you could at least come into chat once in a while. Unlike last time, my vote is neutral. THE NUCLEAR KING Talk 04:49, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Icon neutral My vote falls neutral this time as there are still some concerning factors I have. That being said you are heading in the proper direction and I commend you on your work ethic. Keep up the great work my friend and you'll get you adminship soon enough. - -The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 13:25, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Icon neutral Going neutral in this. I have to many arguments that bother me to vote "yes", but also have too many in favor to vote "no". Admins and bureaucrats have to be the most stable people of the community, I'm not entirely convinced that's the case here after you returned your patroller rights all of the sudden to return 2 days later or so. Also in your communication with other users on the talk pages, there's still a lot difference I think from day to day. Sometimes you're very friendly and clearly explain everything what was wrong. Other times I have the impression you are very short and words and it comes over as if you are talking to someone ignorant. Maybe this is not the case, and it's just me who thinks this way, or maybe you mean it well, but text passes the message maybe differently than how you mean it, I don't know (or maybe it's entirely my interpretation that's wrong in this). Sure, many new users are ignorant on how to fix things, I'm also aware I'm still making mistakes, but still, I think you should never give the impression you may consider them ignorant. On the other hand, you have been doing truely great work editing here the past months. And as you said before, you're often here patrolling, which is certainly a plus for an admin. I also don't consider it to be necesary that you're active in the community to become an admin. On the other hand, it may be fun if you would be, but that's up to you, if it isn't your style, you shouldn't change who you are. I've also seen a lot of improvement since your last admin request, which clearly points out for me that you try to improve what you can, which is really in favor of you. I'd love to give you a yes vote as a sign of apreciation for the work you've done so far, but still I feel there's some work to be done.- Peace'n Hugs Greets 18:27, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Icon neutral I can't vote yes or no because I have had little interaction with you nor have I been around to observe your edits and or interactions with other editors on the wiki. While I think you are more than qualified for the position I can't with good judgement vote yes or no either way when my presence here has been so erratic due to classes and other real life affairs. ---bleep196- (talk) 19:21, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Icon neutral As is the case with bleep, I cannot vote yes or no because I have had little interaction with you, as well. While I see that your presence here makes you more than qualified, I cannot in good conscience vote for something of which I am not completely sure. Best of luck to you, and thank you for your contributions thus far. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 23:16, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Excluded Votes

  1. Icon neutral Pending further discussion/consideration. FollowersApocalypseLogomorituri te salutamus 06:34, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion/Comments

Not that I know anything about you on a personal level but from what I can gather, I'd like to ask - do you need it? I don't think that not logging in should be an issue because frankly the only thing logging in does is give you credit for an edit; therefore the value of the edit is not made lesser purely because it was made anonymously. That being said aside from vandalism combatting (which all you really need for that is to press the revert button and wait for one of the many admins to notice), it seems all your goals are things you can already accomplish without the need of administrator rights. I ain't voting on it because I haven't been around enough to pass judgement. I just think you can already get started on what you want to accomplish without needing additional rights. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 00:21, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

"I don't think that not logging in should be an issue" It shows commitment to the wiki. If you remain an anon then it seems that you don't want to be associated with the wiki, which isn't something you want from an admin. Sure, he logs in now but three months ago he didn't and before that he had to be convinced to even make the account in the first place. It seems kind of unreasonable to give additional rights to an account which the user doesn't even want.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 00:25, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think that I now do not want my account? Sure, I wasn't too interested half a year ago, but now almost all my edits come when I'm logged in. 69.l25 (talk) 00:53, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

What is this concern about his account? For one, being an anon or an account-holder does not determine worth. Secondly, he has consistently been using his account for months now, and has given us absolutely no reason to doubt he'll stop should he climb the ladder and gain additional tool rights. His dedication and hard-work puts most everyone here on this wiki to shame. And that includes when he was still an anon. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:35, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Do you have the skills... Yes, without a doubt. But I have two concerns. One comes from your initial unwillingness to create an account, you said there was a reason you couldn't, but this has never been clarified as to what that reason was. The second is your recent request to have your patroller rights dropped... I don't want to vote no, or maybe... but Im not sure if I can vote yes. I need to think about it some more. Agent c (talk) 00:38, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to start something off-topic here, but it needs to be stated: I've been discouraged in the past, too, after having certain controversial topics ignored by the leadership. It's hard to feel appreciated when being ignored, and I don't see why it should be held against 69 to have felt the need to turn in his Patroller rights. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:43, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
Because we want our admins to be reliable, and quitting every time something doesn't go your way is not reliable. Or mature. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 00:46, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
He didn't quit. He merely turned his rights in, and never gave the impression that he was leaving except temporarily. I've taken breaks from Nukapedia before as well, to blow off steam when I get frustrated. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:49, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
I was gone for two days. Was that too much? 69.l25 (talk) 00:50, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
I'm just saying I don;t want an admin who will turn his rights in every few weeks. I left for some time, nothing wrong with needing some time away but turning your rights in is kind of a final notice I'm out of here move in my book. You didn't take sick leave or go on holiday, you quit your job and I don't think having an admin who may quit is an effective idea. Seeing as, given your reluctance to make and use your account, coupled with the fact that you (only recently) essentially quit your position as patroller I don't have confidence in your ability to be a reliable admin. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 00:57, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
Every few weeks? What do you mean? I did that once in my entire time here for two days. 69.l25 (talk) 01:01, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
My point still stands. I want an admin who can be fully reliable and, to me, you're not. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 01:03, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that you want a fully reliable admin. I'm not having fun bringing this up, but have you looked at the activity of some of our admins any time recently? How can you tell me you're not satisfied with my reliability while you have people with administrative powers who are almost never here to use them? 69.l25 (talk) 01:07, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Its not the length 69. People take a break, thats natural. But when they give up special rights, it gives the impression that they're not coming back. Is it a deadly sin? No. We have an admin on the team who "left" and came straight back. Wether or not others should have turned in rights is a different question. Agent c (talk) 01:18, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

I wanted my rights removed because I didn't want the impression given off that I was active and could be reached out to for help. I made a mistake; I thought I was going to be gone longer, but (partially thanks to the review forum) I came back, and I'm glad that I did. 69.l25 (talk) 01:22, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
My intention wasn't to leave forever; I didn't know how long, so I couldn't say. All I knew was that I wasn't going to be editing, so I wouldn't need my rights. I realize now that people aren't a fan of that, so there's no way I'd make this same mistake again. 69.l25 (talk) 01:33, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my initial resistance to creating an account was because I didn't want to be committed to this wiki. That was in my first two or three weeks. After that, I wanted to be a part of Nukapedia, but I didn't see any necessity in creating an account because at the time, there was nothing I could do with an account that I couldn't do as an anonymous user. I understand now that people see an account as a symbol of commitment, but I never intended to imply that I was uninterested in being active because I didn't have one. 69.l25 (talk) 01:37, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the account thing. It seems like people are using it as an excuse to vote no. There's no reason why your dedication and editing skills should be ignored because you were content editing anonymously - and frankly it shows that you're more interested in improving the wiki than you are in increasing a superfluous number that you can flaunt on your userpage. Anyone who says its a sign of your lack of dedication need only look at the majority of users with accounts who have made few, if any, mainspace edits; point being that having an account doesn't mean anything about dedication. However I'm still unsure as to why you need to have administrator rights to continue your work; there are plenty of non-admins who have been around for a long time that are consistently great editors without the additional rights. And on the flipside there are heaps of amazing admins who have done lots of beneficial work on the site who don't make heaps of mainspace edits every day. If you can give me an example of why you need administrator rights other than for banning vandals (because we have plenty of users who use their additional rights for that alone) I'll gladly vote yes. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 02:06, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
The administrators' toolset provides them with access to technical tools that I, as an editor who leans toward the technical side of the wiki, can use to better the content I'm putting out (stuff like css/template). Moreover, we need active administrators. Indeed we've had admins who've done a great deal of work in the past, but I'm not seeing as much now. As a more active administrator, I can be contacted easily and used to resolve any conflicts or questions. I know there are users that ban vandals, but in the early hours, I revert a lot of vandals' edits only to see them go unnoticed for quite some time. This time span specifically is something that I can work on. 69.l25 (talk) 02:20, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
So with additional rights you can access admin-only pages and coding which will allow you to improve the wiki in ways that a normal user cannot. There you go, that's all you needed to say! And probably something you could mention in your application too. I'll give you my vote of confidence and wish you luck. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 02:27, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

OfficialLolGuy:

Icon neutral I would love to put a yes, I think you're an amazing editor, but there are one or two things which kinda keep me a little bit on the fence. I read through all of this forum now, and saw the discussions below, and I can side with you on absolutely all of them, but there's one that sorta catches my attention. My first concern is your engagement in the community features, now maybe I'm a little incorrect, since I haven't been active here again for that long and I'm just returning to being a regular, but like people said in the last request, I've not really seen much of you in the chat, or other community features, etc. While you addressed this further up, and while I completely agree with everything you said about this matter, and while I can honestly understand you not being interested in the community features, I still personally sort of feel we need to get to know you a bit more. Meh, I don't know, but I really feel an administrator does sort of need at least a little bit of activity and presence in the community interfaces and become sorta familiar amongst the community and especially new users.

But my second concern, sort of in a relation, is interactions with inexperienced users and the like. User talk:69.l25#Removal of my edit on Talk:Pa's fishing aid I felt Jspoelstra did have a decent point during this, as while new users may get on our nerves and it can be like working in a pre-school trying to guide them, etc., we have to look past that and put ourselves in their shoes for a minute. They're the very foundation and lifeblood of a wiki, and some new users who have started pretty badly and came across as the generic clumsy noob, have gone on to become our very own administrators. I mean your interaction with me has been great, but it's what I and Jspoelstra saw with the new users. This is a key target on practically any wiki, not just ours. I'd like to see you work on that a bit more in the future, as our actions with them can determine big things, and make or break events of the wiki, and as Jspoelstra said, new and clumsy users are uncertain, still have to learn a lot, mature, and if people experience that here, they know we're a good place to come to.

Above all, apart from these little things, I think you'd make a great a fantastic administrator, however I'm still sort of on the fence. User Broccoli  OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  02:25, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Believe it or not, a couple months ago I was even less active in community events. I've commented more since then and even made a blog post, but yeah, I remain largely out of the community spotlight. I think that's good though; it the administrators' job to represent the community, and not everyone in the community is so centered around forums, blog posts, chat etc. Those are the people I want to represent - people who focus on file/mainspace edits and are mainly absent from community features. (We exist!)
I'm not perfect, and my conduct with new users is something I need to work on. But I've been improving, though; in my first admin request, I was criticized for some of my snarky/mean spirited edit summaries, which is something I've managed to completely eliminate, giving me more time now to work on conduct with others. 69.l25 (talk) 02:57, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Peace'n Hugs:

I'm sorry, but admins and bureaucrats are certainly not "the most stable people of the community"; indeed, we have a some who are here just about every day to contribute, but most have an unpredictable schedule and are in fact infrequent contributors in these recent times. That's not a firmly established/stable presence, so I'm finding it difficult to understand why leaving for only two days is so scandalous.

The arguments being made in the "no" votes are that I'm not committed to my account and I haven't improved since last time; the account argument seems a blanket statement used to vote no (if you want to see how serious they are about their votes, see the chat logs), and you yourself said that I've improved. I agree that user conduct is something I need to become consistent with, but it isn't as if I'm making no effort or never showed any respect at all for new users. 69.l25 (talk) 19:19, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

With "stable" I didn't necessarily mean the time people are active or the days they are editing, you do very good in that. I mean it more as in reacting always similar. One day, you are the perfect guy, friendly and helpful. And other times a new guy edits, you put a very brief text that I wouldn't have liked on my talk page as beginner. For example the first message on my talk page was from Skire.
"Hi! Thanks for adding images, but per FW:IMAGE we cannot have in-article images that show HUD.|Skire|18:52, July 8, 2013 (UTC)"
The Hi and the Thanks for adding images, made me feel appreciated, and then I went to look up how I could do this and later re-uploaded the pictures. If the post was just per FW:IMAGE we cannot have in-article images that show HUD., the argument says the exact same as the long text, but it feels to me like I'm noob and I should have figured out this stuff before interrupting the perfectness of the Wikia. Even if not meant that way, the tone is totally different if you add a positive note to it. I have seen you do this, but I've also seen you post the latter style of messages. To me, an admin is a face of the Wikia, and should always try and motivate as many contributors to come back and to do their best, even when they are noob as hell (we all were new here once, right?). Compliment them on what they do right, and add what can be done better or offer help on how to edit better. If you could be do that on any message you do, it would improve a lot to me. I know it's hard to make it an automatism, and I really noticed you're doing effort to improve on this, but my opinion is that for now, it isn't yet enough to already be an admin.
I also don't bother the fact you left for 2 days, I'm not editing for a lot longer now, and I am aware that I also won't be doing real edits on articles for the next month, but I just leave it on userpage if someone wonders. I think everyone has moments he can't put too much time into this wikia, and I assume people will understand this and not blame me for this, if I publicly announce i'm out and put an estimated date when I will be back to active. I've said it also to admins in chat, and they didn't seem to be bothered too much by me being out of service for 1,5 months or so. I can also already say that similar scenario will take place in May-June. If you're out, just let the community know, and if they think it's unacceptable to be out for a certain time, they can still take your rights away. I also told Jspoelstra that the moment he would no longer be satisfied with my patroller rights, he could remove them without me holding any bad feelings towards him. How you left, it gave me the impression you just no longer cared and wouldn't return. If you were an admin then, would you also have signed out like that?
And the "no account" argument doesn't bother me too much. First I thought i agreed with it, but well, we're a wikia, the basic idea is that all the anons are welcome to edit. So you not owning an account for long, np, but if you want to use special rights, you should use it or you wouldn't be able to use them. You did so since you had special rights, so I don't see any problem with this.
Yes, your effort has been noticed by me, but right now, i think you're not yet to what I'd like to see from an admin. You indeed no longer made disrespectful comments or anything since you last admin request, and you are increasingly nicer to new faces, but I'd like to see just more from an admin as just showing respect, make the people feel good with a compliment so they feel more welcome and/or apreciated in what they do. Admins should make the people here feel good with what they do while keeping the wikia clean.
To conclude: I'm not saying I'd vote no, I just answered your notes and they all related to the argumentation part of me why i wouldn't vote yes. My vote is still neutral for now. - Greets 00:01, December 27, 2013 (UTC)
I understand your concern with my ability to put on a friendly face and welcome new users. Going back thorough my edits, I too see sometimes I left nice comments on talkpages and other times blunt/unwelcoming warnings. An admin should be a friendly face, and it's something I'm working on, but there are more opportunities that open up for an admin other than just a chance to be a friendly face. Technical aspects, mediation, and independence can all come from this position, and do you really want to tell my that I can't have access to this because I'm lacking in one aspect? In fact, the most recent time I put a blunt message to a user due to a talkpage, I opened up a discussion with Jspoel about how to be more efficient when leaving users messages about article talk page misuse. We've been thinking of just using a template to let users know that they've done something incorrect, just like the {{Talkpage}} template we already have, but instead something that can be posted in users' talkpages; this would remove the need for an admin (or any user) to have to have to personally contact someone about talkpages and risk the chance of sounding insincere or superior. 69.l25 (talk) 23:43, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not really supportive towards the {{Talkpage}} idea. I think personal help and contact is something wikia's really need. And it's indeed just 1 aspect i'm really worried about, but in my opinion, it's something an admin really needs. I'm sure you will improve it, I've seen you go forward in this matter since your last request, but not yet as much forward as what I expect from an admin. Maybe if you delayed the request a month or so, I may have had a different opinion considering your improvements by then. And as you said, the message to Jspoel. It was quite recent and it did bother me. I know he isn't new here, but you should also respect those that have been long here. Jspoel knows what he doing here, and he's spending a lot of his time here just to improve this site for everyone. Even if he disagrees with you, or if he said something you didn't like, you should always keep paying respect. (that's again more the stable part I put in the beginning of the text). - Greets 00:01, December 27, 2013 (UTC)

Richie9999:

Maybe you didn't read through the discussion because a lot of what you've written has been answered/explained already. I didn't "resign"; I was planning on leaving for a while and didn't need my rights (as I wouldn't be here) so I asked for them to be taken away. I realize now that that gave the wrong message, and that was I mistake I made because I came back so quickly. I don't expect you to read this, in part because of Gunny's "word to the wise," where he called it stupid to "argue" when "folks point out your flaws," but I don't know that you got the whole story. 69.l25 (talk) 22:46, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
"You can remove my Patroller rights too. I've been quite inactive for the past few months, and I've been meaning to say something; I just wasn't sure who to go to. Figured saying something would be better than just never showing up again" - 69.l25|22:55, December 18, 2013 (UTC)
I was leaning towards a yes, but something here doesn't ring true. Agent c (talk) 22:59, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

I had been meaning to say something; when I came here, I primarily focused on fixing character infoboxes and adding content from the GECK. In recent months, it's been less necessary to correct data, and we've made major progress with the character infobox project. Without as strong a need for GECK-related material, I felt my activity declining, and I had been considering just taking a break- something that Dead Gunner's request set me off to do. "Figured saying something would be better than just never showing up again" simply means that I wanted my rights removed while I took some time away because I wouldn't need them; I didn't know how long I'd be gone (turned out to be just a short amount of time), so I didn't feel any need to have my rights while I was away; I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't want to give off the impression that I could be reached for help due to my patroller status. I knew that most people would just post something on their userpage saying that they were going to take a break while retaining their rights, but I just didn't see a need to keep them.
I understand now asking for my rights to be taken away was a mistake; it would have been easier for everyone if I just said something on my userpage, and if I ever want to go away for a bit again, that's what I'll do. I have, however, found something new to do: gathering images for generic characters. I've covered Great Khans, Wastelanders, and some Enclave characters, and I intend to get more images soon. 69.l25 (talk) 23:31, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there is any member of our administrative team who has never felt discouraged to the point of wanting to take a break, perhaps even one that would last for quite some time... 69.l25 felt discouragement after a few events and decided to take a break after all, and furthermore decided that it would be hypocritical of him to keep his extra user rights while on the planned break, leading to his handing in of his rights by a message to a bureaucrat. Now here's the catch: this planned break lasted only a matter of a few short days. Perhaps those who caught the message on Gunny's TP knew of his planned absence, but otherwise I doubt this brief leave was really noticeable. 69.l25 returned quickly and immediately resumed active editing and participation in community discussions. Since then, he has made well over 200 total edits. I believe he showed resiliency in this, and I furthermore believe that resiliency is an important trait administrators should have. It is as such that I support 69.l25's run for administrator and I would encourage you to do the same. --Skire (talk) 20:55, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Result

This request is now being reviewed by the other bureaucrats, and we'll have an announcement in time. Agent c (talk) 23:09, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

After careful consideration and consultation, the bureaucrats have agreed to take the unusual action of tabling the result of this request. 69.l25's skill as an editor, and his need for admin tools have met little or no opposition, but the community has been vocal on a number of concerns we are not wont to ignore. The greatest concerns listed were the use of his account, the proximity to turning in and regaining his rights, and the timing of his request coming at the minimum requirement since his last application. We understand that the use of his account is no longer an issue, but the other two concerns need to be addressed. After considering our options, we determined that delaying our decision for one month will not only address the other two concerns, but also allow him to show the community improvement on the other concerns they've raised, such as communication skills. After monitoring his progress, on Feb 1, 2014, we will determine the final disposition of this request. Another request will not be necessary, the support shown for him on this request, coupled with the opportunity to address the concerns listed, will provide us with the input required for a final decision.

End of month review

When the idea of "suspending" the result of 69's admin vote was discussed, it seemed like the natural solution to the problems raised in his vote. People were unhappy with the perceived lack of commitment, and weren't sure if his people skills were up to par. It was hoped that this period would allow the community to gain confidence in his commitment, and allow 69 some time to take on board the previous feedback and demonstrate better people skills.

Unfortunately, whilst 69's commitment is perhaps no longer in question, the improvement in people skills hasn't been shown, in fact it appears there has been some regression in this area. There has been some improvement in the final few days of the month, but not enough to outweigh the rest of the month.

Since the initial vote, several members have been directly in touch with the bureaucrat team to "take back" their vote of support or neutral votes, and have indicated that in a new vote they would in fact vote no. This much like the suspended result is unprecedented and we can't ignore it. We've also seen uneasiness in chat about him taking on this role from people who have supported his request before voting was closed.

On this grounds, we're going to have to decline 69's admin request. Whilst I can't recall any previous request that has had more yesses being rejected since the split, and only one before it; we can't ignore the essentially changed votes from several members, or our own uneasiness in 69 taking on this role. This contact from community members indicates that this decision to decline isn't just a bureaucrat decision, but reflects the current mood of the community. Agent c (talk) 21:44, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Comment Jspoel

I understand it is a disappointment for you, but you still need to work on how you communicate with others. Also, you should focus more on what you’re good at (work on the infoboxes and your image project), and less on what’s likely to get you into trouble (talkpages) in my opinion. If you do that, you’ll have a good chance next time (I’d wait a bit longer than a month this time).

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+