Forum:Bureaucrat request - The Gunny (again)

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Bureaucrat request - The Gunny (again)

I'll keep this short and simple. I've decided to ask for bureaucrat rights again. I've been thinking about this for some time, trying to decide whether it's warranted or not. I thought the answer to that question lay in answering why I gave up my rights in the first place. Boiled down, that was for two reasons: I had more on my plate in real life giving me less time to contribute; and I was, quite frankly, tired of the infantile behavior of a number of users. The answer to the first question was that, with the major events at my work for this year completed, I have more time available. The answer to the second question is that, for various reasons, some of the infantile behavior has abated.

But as I sat and parsed those rationales, I found they didn't answer the question of why I needed bc rights again. I found that answer when I considered exactly what those rights bring, and the responsibilities they bear: Leadership and judgement. The question of my leadership and judgement, I realized, is not one I can answer myself. I realized that the only people that can answer that question is you, the community. There's an arguable case that I might need sysop rights to contribute here, considering the type of contributions I make, mostly in the template and mediawiki spaces, but the only arguable case for me to have BC rights is if you, the community, desire my leadership and judgement again.

There may be times in the future when real life constrains my time again, but even in those times, while I may not be able to contribute with edits, I am always able to stay abreast of the community, its important decisions and communicate with the other bureaucrats on those issues.

So, keeping this as simple as possible, do you, the community, desire my leadership and judgement as a bureaucrat?

Vote

Poll finished on 7:22 pm June 27, 2015 (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 user's votes.

Yes

1. . No question about it. Has skills that are much needed on the wiki. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:22, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
2. Ten times yes. I'm very happy to see you run for it! - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 19:26, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
3. Despite the fact that you stepped down, people still went to you for advice and leadership, a capacity you continued to act in despite stepping down, plus you know a whole lot more about templates and whatnot than I do (we need those skills). Richie9999 (talk) 19:28, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
4. Agent c (talk) 19:40, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
5. Gummy bear was a great bureaucrat before and with the pending release of FO4 the wiki needs all of the help it can get. Shining-Armor ^(talk) 19:42, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
6. I wasn't active when he was bureaucrat, but I've heard good things and he seems like a good guy from what I've seen. KernHallowed are the Ori 20:54, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

Questions

There are a few grievances that I have, but frankly, many of them are in the past and there is no reason to drudge them back up when they are no longer relevant. But there is something a bit concerning that I had noticed before, that is becoming something more, and is really my only question before I decide as to yes or no:

When the whole deal with inactive rights-holders was going on, and how to deal with what inactivity should be classified as, you and a few other users were using your personal wiki to have back-room discussions on the matter, specifically as to how the bureaucrats should take control of classification, amongst other discussions pertaining to rather important topics going on around the wiki. Since then, I have noticed that our users have progressively been using private discussions more and more in order to come to non-transparent decisions - decisions which directly affect the entire wiki and not just community aspects of the wiki.

It is getting to the point now where if a user has an agenda, they just get a consensus in chat, and enforce their agendas based on them. These discussions are no longer even being logged since the removal of the chat-logger. I think the largest reason why this is becoming more and more acceptable, is because our bureaucrats regularly partake themselves (I am not saying that every bureaucrat does this).

So I am wanting to know your opinion on this behaviour, and your opinion on how important/non-important transparent decisions/discussions are on Nukapedia.

Aside from that, I have full-faith in your abilities. We have had our differences, but the fact remains, a fact that I cannot dispute, that you have always been an important element, and you will continue to be one regardless of your position on this wiki. So I wish you the best of luck on your request. 69.247.6.120 19:38, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

ayy lmao, i expect better from an anon. ayyyy lmao ^{Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate} 19:46, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

Leon, I can always count on you to be thoughtful of your points and cut to them. I would agree with you about the current state of chat discussions. But first, let me tackle how I used another wiki to formulate discussion between the bureaucrats. From the day I first started as a BC, I made it plain to the others that my desire was that we speak with one voice as much as possible. Our job, as I saw it, was to consider events and proposals as they presented themselves, deliberate and finalize our thoughts as a body. I see these actions akin to the Supreme Court. I have used another wiki when needed to prepare ideas among the other bcs when wikicoding was needed or the ability to communally edit was necessary. Emails are not exactly the best medium for this. When the ideas were fully formulated and agreed upon, we would then be able to transport them easily to the pages here, if needed. The specific idea you speak of never came to fruition, if I recall correctly, because we did not come to agreement on it. Regardless, I can see why it would be considered as you do, back-room, although it was on a freely available wiki and accessible to any who choose to look, as you did. To sum up: I used that wiki because we had not yet agreed on the idea, and I did not want to present it here until it was agreed upon. As it turns out, it never was. The intention was not to hide something nefarious, but rather to make sure it was even something we were willing to do and was fully formed when we did it.

To your second point, the way consensus is gained, I have also seen, and been a part of, gaining consensus using chat. Chat is an interesting tool, one that can quickly facilitate conversation. What you might not have seen is my frequent requests for people to use the article talk pages to discuss and come to consensus on edit conflicts. I feel this is something we do poorly. I have always felt that article talk pages are the proper place for these discussions and have tried to make myself clear on this issue, even to the point of refusing to comment on others' talk pages when the conversation drifts there. Based on this, what I would prefer is that consensus be made on article talk pages. That's the way wikipedia does it, that's the way I believe it should be done. If a consensus is made in chat, then it should be plainly stated on the talk page to give non-chat goers the opportunity to chime in.

We will always have users using other mediums to discuss things that pertain to the wiki. Chat, skype, steam, other wikis and other wiki chats, I've seen them all used, with many, many people involved. As long as the consensus of those using other medium is presented here with an opportunity for others to have their way, I have no problem with it. Use the talk pages. If no consensus can be gained the last resort is to open a forum. I personally feel almost all of our conflicts can be resolved on the talk pages, and minor issues should never even need to go to forums. I hope I answered your questions, as it was your actions that made me rethink applying. When you asked my opinion on a matter recently is when I realized that it matters most what the community thinks of my judgement. The Gunny   20:12, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

I really do appreciate that response, and there was quite a bit there that I was either unsure of, or did not know about. To go a bit further, I did have a bit more elaboration to my question that I was going to ask, but then I remembered a particularly powerful quote from one of our users here (to me it was powerful), that I would enjoy having as a substitute, instead:

"It left me with an ill-tasting impression that you would rather heavyhand particular standpoints than actually make the effort to educate users and involve the community."

In this elaboration, I am referring now to the way others take to chat - not you specifically, or even at all necessarily, when it comes to overriding the opinions of others using non-transparent consensus.

When it comes to your participation on an external wiki, I am pretty much satisfied with your answer. But as you are wanting to serve the wiki and its community as a bureaucrat again, I would really like to hear your take on what I quoted above. I am not going to call anyone out, as I understand that when users do this, they more-than-likely are doing it with the best of intentions - not understanding that they are alienating community involvement by relying on a controlled environment for their consensus.

As a side-note, I am happy that you came to that realization. I know I have been gung-ho for quite some time, trying to address what I saw as wrongs, and in some cases, that caused for us to butt-heads. But in the end, I do have faith in our leaders much to the contrary of what others here think of me. Someone has to ask the hard-questions, is all, I s'pose. 69.247.6.120 20:30, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

Reading my latest comment again, I realized I should probably be more blunt with my question. In short, I am asking as to whether or not you will take charge in situations where non-transparent decisions are used to dictate wiki-content, as a bureaucrat.

Telling people to take it to the actual article or a forum is one thing. But with precedents already set, users are going to just keep doing what they are now familiar with doing. Maybe this is not such a big deal now, where most of the community is in chat anyways. But with Fallout 4 coming out, where there are going to be more editors than chatters, I think this is going to be something that should be properly addressed, before it gets out of hand. 69.247.6.120 20:39, June 13, 2015 (UTC)