Avatar Wiki:Nominations for bureaucratship/Archive 2012

This is a page archive. Please do not add or remove any content from it. (72,559 bytes)

September/October

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
Lady Lostris will now become Avatar Wiki's 7th bureaucrat.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Dcasawang1

Dcasawang1 (wall · contribs · editcount · logs)

Nomination

I, Azulazulazula, nominate Dcasawang1 for Bureaucratship. In the three years (I think? Three years?) he's been here, he's not only been an outstanding editor and a true symbol of the wiki--really, he's a household name on the wiki--but an absolutely, unwaveringly approachable, friendly, somewhat strict, but very fair member of the community, and I feel these qualities make him a perfect candidate for 'cratship. Go for it DC!

Azulazulazula (Life is like a tall cliff...) 02:21, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. Thanks AAA. :) Dcasawang1 • wall 02:46, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Questions

• Name five qualities, in no particular order, that you feel make you fit for the position of bureaucrat. Azulazulazula (Life is like a tall cliff...) 02:52, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • So, in no particular order: one of them is my disposition to always hear what another user has to say, consciously reading his/her arguments and not prejudging by what I know about him/her from before.
    Another one would be 'encouraging'; for example, if a user requests rollback rights and doesn't get them the first time, I like to encourage that person to continue his/her work in the wiki, giving him/her some tips to able to have a second chance in the future so s/he reapplies when it's the right time and with more confidence.
    Also, somehow related to the next question, I'm quite demanding, though not extremely strict, while making a decision about a user rights change, which I believe is the correct attitude for a bureaucrat. I would check and 'study' each case detailedly and decide if someone really deserves to be granted with certain rights and if would make a good job with them.
    I'm glad to be able to say that I know the community, how most of users improve and gain experience as that's something I'm always watching.
    And fifth, 'reasonable'. I think all the previous qualities allow me to be reasonable by letting me examine reasons in favor or against an argument and finally making a decision that will be, chiefly, the best for the wiki and, of course, also a fair decision. Dcasawang1 • wall 16:25, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

• It's come to my attention that requests for rollback is becoming a more and more lenient system, with more and more users becoming rollbacks, perhaps undeservingly. If elected bureaucrat, will you fix this, or do you see it as a non-issue, or do you not believe this is happening at all? Azulazulazula (Life is like a tall cliff...) 02:52, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry to interrupt here, but I just want to point out that the success rate at requests for rollback is below 50%. The 888th Avatar (talk) 06:15, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't "fix" this as I don't think we have that problem. I've disagreed a couple of times about users getting rollback rights in certain cases, but that doesn't mean we have a more lenient system, so I don't agree with the fact that users are becoming rollbacks "undeservingly". Each bureaucrat has a different perspective and thus different reasons to accept or decline a request, which is normal. I won't try to be more lenient or less lenient, I will just see if the user has the requirements and if understands how to use the rights. Dcasawang1 • wall 16:25, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

• There is no question that you are an outstanding editor, but part of what defines a bureaucrat is their critical thinking and logical reasoning. Due to your relative absence in the War Room compared to your fellow administrators, this cannot be easily gauged. Thus, outline your personal perspective on why you are suitable in this regard. KettleMeetPot • wall 03:10, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that part of what defines a bureaucrat is their critical thinking and logical reasoning and that that can be demonstrated in the War Room, but I don't think my number of contributions in forums can indicate I don't have such qualities. I believe I have demonstrated to possess them in several ocassions I have had the opportunity to do so in the War Room or somewhere else. It's my working style to give my opinion in forums where I feel it's needed and it will make a difference by offering a new perspective about the topic. It's just how I usually contribute to these discussions. So, basically, I'm suitable in this regard because I think I do have the qualities you mentioned, which are not related to the extent or frequency I demonstrate them in the War Room. Dcasawang1 • wall 19:43, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

This question was considered invalid.

Recently, this wiki had a problem with some particularly rebellious users, and a group called the "Wikiequalists." These users vandalized and basically disrupted the peaceful nature of this wiki. Today, Omar067, who was a prominent member of the group, is blocked indefinitely after going in and out of being blocked. Would you have handled the situation differently than the bureaucrats did at the time? Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 03:36, September 29, 2012 (UTC) Again, I apologise for being a pain, but this question isn't relevant to bureaucratship. Bureaucratship is purely to do with user rights management, and carries no greater authority than adminship over blocking policy. The 888th Avatar (talk) 06:15, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

• What does being a bureaucrat mean to you? What does it mean to be a good bureaucrat? PSUAvatar14 Want to have a word? 05:56, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Being a bureaucrat means accepting another responsibility, which is to have the ability to change user rights, making decisions in the case of rollbacks, and accepting the community's in the case of administrator/bureaucrat nominations. Being a good bureaucrat means to fulfill these tasks always considering other users' arguments, judging reasonably in each case, and making sure that these processes are carried out fairly. I also think that another quality that defines a good bureaucrat is to encourage users who don't get rollback rights at first to improve and guide them about how they should proceed if they wish to request again in the future. Dcasawang1 • wall 21:47, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

This question was considered invalid.

First, I want to say "I HATE YOU, ALUZA!" I want to nominate Dc first, but looks like you've beat me in this case. Just kidding. To the question. Being a bureaucrat is not as simple as it looks like. Any promises from you to be a good bureaucrat? Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 13:14, September 29, 2012 (UTC) This is not a valid question. Answering it does not inform anyone or help them form an opinion about this nomination. The 888th Avatar (talk) 14:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

This question was considered to be too similar to another question.
Describe yourself as an 'crat in one word. What would the quality be you would be known for? Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 13:14, September 29, 2012 (UTC) This is too similar to the first question. I don't think there's a point in answering a similar thing twice. The 888th Avatar (talk) 14:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

• In these nominations, you are not only judged by your strengths, but also by your weaknesses and self-awareness of those shortcomings. What one unique weakness do you believe would affect your bureaucrat of this wiki, and why? Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 13:14, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • A weakness that I'm not sure would affect my work as a bureaucrat, but could be difficult to do at first until I get used to it, would be the effort I'd have to put to be objective or neutral. There are many users in the wiki who I know well, and if I have to accept or decline some requests for rollback, maybe it'll not be that easy to leave that subjectivity apart. However, I think this is an aspect that can be changed and it's only a mandatory step that I'll eventually take. Dcasawang1 • wall 02:58, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

This question was considered invalid.
We're community, and as a bureaucrat, you will indirectly be the leader. Name two weaknesses and qualities of our community, thus far. Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 13:14, September 29, 2012 (UTC) This is not a valid question. A bureaucrat, per policy, is not a leadership position. The 888th Avatar (talk) 14:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

This question was considered to be too similar to another question.

What are your specialities that make you interested to put "I agree" on the nomination? What's your special reason? Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 13:34, September 29, 2012 (UTC) This question is too similar to KFB's question. He asks what it means to DC to be a bureaucrat, which would be answering the same question as asking why he would agree to be one. The 888th Avatar (talk) 14:56, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

This question was considered invalid.
"Being a bureaucrat must ready to become a servant for everyone." Do you agree with that quote? Why? Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 15:37, September 29, 2012 (UTC) This is an adminship question, not a bureaucratship question. Anyone eligible to be a bureaucrat is already an admin. The 888th Avatar (talk) 03:02, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

• As a bureaucrat, you will work with 888 with a lot of tasks that 'maybe' disturb your real life. Do you ready with those tasks? Why? Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 15:37, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

• "As a bureaucrat, you must be able to work with everyone below you." Do you agree with that quote? Why? Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 15:37, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't agree, because I believe that no user is below another. Dcasawang1 • wall 06:11, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

• What do you think makes you a suitable user to become a bureaucrat? What do you think you can accomplishment if you are to become a bureaucrat? HenryJh 98 (Blogs • ATSW • FFF) 21:45, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • What do I think I can accomplish if I became bureaucrat? Pretty much what any responsible bureaucrat could accomplish, have a fair judgment and do my tasks properly. And about what do I think makes me suitable for it, basically the qualities I mentioned in my first answer to Azulazulazula. I believe that they will allow me to accomplish everything a good bureaucrat is meant to accomplish. Dcasawang1 • wall 22:05, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

• Who would you be more inclined to give rollbackship to, a user with a few quantitive edits or a user with a lot of small edits? – TechFilmer🍍 20:15, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • That depends on the user's anti-vandalism history, which is the main requirement to get rollback rights. That'd make the quantity and quality of other edits irrelevant. So, if the user has a few quantitive edits or a lot of poor quality edits will have no importance at the time of applying for rollback since that isn't related to what a rollback user will do as such. Dcasawang1 • wall 22:13, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

• An important part of being a bureaucrat is not being biased against users. You must be able to turn down a friend's request for rollback if they do not deserve it, and be able to grant a user's request if you don't particularly like them. How important do you think this statement is, and do honestly feel you'll be able to not hold prejudiced views of users? Fire Ferret 04:26, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with that statement. It's important, especially for a bureaucrat due to his/her role, to not be biased and be able to make decisions, turn down or accept requests judging only because of the user's history, qualities, and contributions, and not because of any personal relation s/he may have to that bureaucrat as that's not a fair procedure expected from a person carrying out this function in the wiki, and it doesn't have anything to do with a community benefit. So yes, I find that statement very important.
  • Honestly, as I said in a previous answer, I have a slight concern that, at first, any previous knowledge I have about certain user may have an influence in my view on him/her, however, I have demonstrated myself to be able to discern between a biased and a fair decision several times in the past in the wiki, so this actually wouldn't affect in the decision I finally make as I know what the correct action is and will always choose what is best for the wiki. In brief, I believe I can perform this task properly and unbiasedly. Dcasawang1 • wall 19:34, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

• How would you handle situations that demand you to perform an action that you find yourself completely disagreeing with, but has been decided by the community to be put in policy? One example; a rollback should lose their rights if they make a finite number (3) of poor comments requiring deletion. If you do not find yourself in harsh disagreement to this, then consider a situation you would. If this were to then occur, what would your choice of action be and why? Vulmen (talk • EoK) 04:44, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • I would strongly disagree with that hypotetical policy, so I'll take it as the example to answer the question. Of course, I would respect the consensus and would act according to the community's decision, so I would remove rights if this new rule undoubtly applies to the case. However, a policy like that one does sound subjective and, as a bureaucrat, I would meticulously address every situation before making any decision about the user's rights and would make sure it is justified and the reason was not a simple mistake by the rollback or a misunderstanding. Regardless, a so incorrect course of action about rollback rights' management would soon cause a negative impact and an absurd policy would eventually be put in evidence. At this point, I would bring back this discussion to the War Room, explaning how this decision was not correctly taken and evidencing the clear problems it has caused, which most likely would lead to a reconsideration of the rule. Dcasawang1 • wall 21:30, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Voting

Support

1. Support — DC will be a great 'crat. DC is a great user, a smart user, and a friendly user. I think DC could a be great 'crat. HenryJh 98 (Blogs • ATSW • FFF) 15:15, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
2. Support — DC is an excellent candidate for 'cratship. He's an awesome user, and very helpful. I don't think he would disappoint. Sokka jr • Wall • Blogs• Fanon 16:07, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
3. Strong support — See my nomination. Azulazulazula (Life is like a tall cliff...) 21:01, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
4. Support — I'll be totally honest right now in that I've had a billion times more contact on this wiki with the other candidates than I have with DC. In fact, I can't recall that last conversation I had with the guy. But none of that matters in this vote; although I know LL and ARG better, this doesn't mean that I haven't seen DC's work and skill around the wiki. Not only are is editing contributions superb, his manner of discussion that I've seen him employ mostly on IRC always leads to the best outcome in any situation, and I can tell that he is capable of understanding what is right and wrong for Avatar Wiki. I'm sure he'll be a great bureaucrat for these reasons. Krazykid51 22:34, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
5. Support — As stated by other members of the community, Lostris does possess a certain aspect that DC hasn't quite shown, her ability to follow through with her opinion and not let it be swayed by others unless she is clearly proven wrong, etc. But, what hasn't been mentioned is that DC, at least in my opinion, is a better mediator than Lostris. It's just more preferable to me that a bureaucrat be one with the ability to mediate situations rather than one with the ability to follow through with their personal views and opinions. shock (talk) 01:32, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

   I was struck by the "mediator" line of reasoning, due to a few things. Firstly, I don't see how one candidate can be definitively judged as better at mediating a situation compared to another. Both Lostris and DC have had their fair share of tough situations, in which they have had to use diplomacy, and they have both generally done a good job. Also, another line of reasoning I wish to contend is the link between being a bureaucrat and being "a better mediator"; the post of a bureaucrat is not related to mediating situations between people - that is something that anyone can do, and that many non-bureaucrats already do. Their post is purely in organizing user rights, and I would affirm that the ability of a person to mediate situations has nothing to do with why one would be considered a better bureaucrat. KettleMeetPot • wall 02:52, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

   This is true, though, I'd just like to say that being a 'crat does have mediation come with the territory. This is due to the vast amount of decision making expected of a 'crat, and how irregardless of anything said, others will indeed look to them to solve problems and come to them as such. I'm not going to be arguing any point here, as there's very little point to be made, simply attempting to clarify that. Vulmen (talk • EoK) 02:59, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

   Hmm. I don't know. I would've thought that bureaucrats being seen as mediators had more to do with your character, Vulmen, than it coming with the territory. So I'd also disagree that bureaucrats need to be good mediators, not that any of the candidates aren't. The 888th Avatar (talk) 03:17, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

   Of course it should be part of the person's character. And yes, seeing as all current candidates should be able to handle tough situations, the point is pretty moot to debate over. Simply saying, regardless of it being or not being in the list of to-do's, it's one of the will happens, and you do end up finding yourself in that position quite often as well. Vulmen (talk • EoK) 03:26, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

   You know what, you both may be correct, but as I stated before, "It's just more preferable to me that a bureaucrat be one with the ability to mediate situations rather than one with the ability to follow through with their personal views and opinions." Anyone can mediate situations, but once again, in my opinion, I think that Dcasawang is a better mediator than Lostris, and I prefer a bureaucrat to be a mediator instead of a someone unflinching in their opinion. This vote was based on my personal views and opinions. If you don't like it, I'm sorry. shock (talk) 17:39, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not following. Especially the bit about Lostris's inability to be "swayed by others unless she is clearly proven wrong". So she's not manipulated... This is a bad thing... how? Having said that, I'm also not sure what you're implying about DC. Are you saying he's prone to change his opinions when pressured enough? And for that matter, what does one's strength of convictions have to do with mediation? Please, explain, I honestly don't get it. :) ― Thailog 18:33, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

6. Support — I, like 888, have found trouble now that voting has opened. I don't quite like having to lay out just one single support. I mean no disrespect to our other candidates. I must say that I find myself in agreement with the very well-stated and honest support given by Krazykid. I feel certain that whatever difficulty is laid before Dc, he will drive it toward the best resolution. One that he would do a fine job showing impartial reasoning toward. Vulmen (talk • EoK) 01:34, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
7. Support — As with others, this proved an extremely difficult decision to make. That said, DC's contributions to the wiki have been nothing short of stellar and he is more than capable of making resolutions that are for the betterment of the community. He is a highly approachable and amiable user, decisive and level-headed when discussing matters in the War Room and firm yet polite. He has been a phenomenal administrator and I have faith that he would make an excellent bureaucrat. The Ultimate Waterbender 15:14, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
8. Support — Once the voting opened, like others, I admit that I found some diffuculty deciding on one candidate. I, much like the adminship nominations, found myself resisting the urge to put my support under every candidate. All of the nominated admins here on this page have been quite helpful and friendly to me, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. But sadly, I can only vote for one person, and I'm guessing you can tell who. I chose DC because of, for one, the aforementioned details: that he is helpful and friendly. Not only that, but DC has been encouraging and more-than-kind to me as well. As for the community, moving off of the personal views, DC is one that you know will make large endeavors to help the community as a whole, but also the people of the community. DC is also an experienced administrator and user, so there are no worries that he will not be a great bureaucrat. He is also approachable, so you don't have to fret about speaking to him as he will give nothing but honest and helpful advice or opinions. All in all, DC is, in my personal and most honest opinion, the best candidate for bureaucratship, and has my firm vote all the way. WaterbenderTaikai (Marionette · Parentless) 00:39, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral — See directly below. The 888th Avatar (talk) 05:22, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

   I’ve known DC as one of the best Avatar Wikians I’ve met in the four years I’ve been on this wiki. Effusive praise is more than justified. But that does not automatically make one the best candidate for bureaucratship. That requires comparison against a much more nuanced set of criteria, and to be honest, all the candidates here equally fill the usual criteria. I have confidence that all three are good judges of character, and are fair and balanced in determining consensus. This means that distinguishing between them comes down to some difficult character judgements I’ve made. Ultimately, because I feel (albeit narrowly) that another candidate, Lostris, has better conviction and brings a greater diversity of views to the bureaucrat “panel”, I was forced into casting this neutral vote.

    

   When I talk about conviction, I’m talking about sticking to your guns, the ability to really believe in your instincts and justify them in the face of opposition. The importance of being able to do this can’t be underestimated. Just recently, as the only bureaucrat, I had to make a decision on nominations for adminship that inevitably would disappoint many people in the community. I had to take it upon myself to not only explain it once, in a long essay (that I doubt many read other than the little section where I announced who won), but also to individual community members. In this department, I think DC is edged out by Lostris. DC is certainly confident, and his wait-and-see and consultative approach to things certainly isn’t a weakness. But when one needs to make decisions on rollback requests, and when one needs to lay out an opinion, one wasn’t elected to give up their own discretionary judgement. One was elected because the community has confidence in their unilateral decision making – otherwise, why bother requiring bureaucrat candidates to be an experienced administrator? I’m not saying that DC is indecisive; however, I am saying that based on my substantial experience with all the candidates, I am most confident that Lostris is unafraid to take the plunge.

    

   I also think it’s important on a wiki like this for there to be a diversity of views, with regards to the kinds of discretion I described before, on the “panel” (for want of a better word) of bureaucrats. I think that the principles of this wiki are best served when healthy debate brings out all possible permutations of all possible arguments. This is far more representative. Again, while I certainly don’t discount DC’s ability to make a case, I am more convinced that Lostris would be willing to offer that case in comparison to mine, so that the best interests of the wiki are served with regard to user rights. You only need to look into archives to find cases where our debates have led to, I think, better consensus decisions.

    

   This vote certainly wasn’t an easy one to make, and in fact, I almost decided to not vote again. But given that I am the other bureaucrat, I decided that it would be best if I made my views on the matter clear. And those views are that between DC and Lostris, I find that while both sufficiently satisfy the requirements, Lostris provides that little bit extra that has always impressed me. The 888th Avatar (talk) 05:22, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

2. Neutral — As I outlined in my vote for Lostris, my decision to pledge support to Lostris was difficult, and I have no doubt that DC would make a great bureaucrat. I'm confident that he would be able to objectively judge requests and make honest decisions, however, I feel that these qualities are simply more prominent in Lostris, as her contributions to forums and other various discussions have made this evident. I do feel that DC's experience on the wiki is paralleled only by one or two users, however, I can only support one nomination, and at this time that support goes to Lostris. Annawantimes (Talk) 06:22, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
3. Neutral — I like DC. I think he's an amazing user with excellent contributions and a solid understanding of how things work around here. However, like 888 - I felt like he lacked that extra something that Lostris does have, which you can see in my support vote for her. PSUAvatar14 Want to have a word? 17:49, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
4. Neutral — What can I say about DC that hasn't already been said? He's a great user, and I've had contact with him on the wiki during the years that I've been on here, active or semi-active. He's done good work as an admin during his time in the position. However, as the others in the neutral column have implied, he just seems a little too mild-mannered to really be in touch with all the nitty, gritty situations that a 'crat can sometimes be involved with. Other admins, like LL have shown this ability and thus have an edge. This isn't an opposition, but DC, I don't feel it's your time yet. H-Man: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 00:12, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Lady Lostris

Lady Lostris (wall · contribs · editcount · logs)

Nomination

I, KettleMeetPot, nominate Lady Lostris for bureaucratship on Avatar Wiki. As an admin, and I daresay even before that, she has exhibited the aptitude and the resilience required to be a bureaucrat on this wiki. In the relatively brief time I have known her, I already know for a fact that she values integrity and honesty, and is one of the most approachable users on this wiki. Furthermore, she knows how to stick up to what she believes in, and has the strength of mind to follow through. In my opinion, she has the potential to be an excellent bureaucrat alongside The 888th Avatar. KettleMeetPot • wall 02:30, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

I accept. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 15:59, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Questions

• What does being a bureaucrat mean to you? What does it mean to be a good bureaucrat? PSUAvatar14 Want to have a word? 19:45, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a rather standard and irrelevant question by now and can basically be answered by a copy/paste of my answer to the same question but then for the administrator election. Bureaucrat means absolutely nothing to me. Whether someone is a bureaucrat, an administrator, a rollback, an autoconfirmed user, or an anonymous user, what's the difference? They're all the same and their opinion matters just as much.
  • So what is a good bureaucrat? Someone who understands that s/he is nothing special just because they now technically have the most rights someone can obtain on the wiki. A bureaucrat's main task is to take care of user rights, so obviously they need to have a good judge of character and the ability to remain objective, even if that means turning one of their friends down if they are not ready yet for certain tasks. So basically, I'd say honesty and good judgment is what makes a good bureaucrat, cause for the rest, a bureaucrat does not have to be any more special than any admin or any other user needs to be -though you could also say that those are two qualities everyone could benefit from in any position. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 21:33, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
• Who would you be more inclined to give rollbackship to, a user with a few quantitive edits or a user with a lot of small edits? – TechFilmer🍍 20:16, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • Given that information, I wouldn't give it to neither as I simply do not have enough information to make an objectively based judgment. Obtaining rollback rights has nothing to do with the amount of edits or the quality of the edits, but with the nature of the edits. Rollback rights are to aid in anti-vandalism work, so one can have a thousand small edits or five totally and amazingly rewrites without ever having concerned themselves with vandalism or something. As such, both of them have proven to have no interest in undoing vandalism, the reason for the rollback button and as such, they don't need the rights. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 21:33, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
• All the candidates in this election have certainly demonstrated great works in their respective adminship periods and appear ready for the bureaucratship role. Explain why you feel you yourself deserve the role. PSUAvatar14 Want to have a word? 00:33, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not feel like I deserve the role as I am of the simple mindset that bureaucrat (or adminship for that matter) is not something that is to be earned or deserved. One can have rewritten all the main pages to be of A-class status -which would undoubtedly constitute as a great work- or perhaps be the most omnipresent user on the wiki, though they can have done that while being totally biased and sport a "friends first" policy on the side. The other way around is also possible: one can hardly have any edits and not really visible and whatnot while sporting the admirable personality traits of honesty, good character judge, firmness, determination, etc.
  • A bureaucrat is a function on a wiki that is added to give every wiki a sense of self-sustainability to be able to choose their own rollbacks/administrators etc, so you could say that it is necessary for its good function, and thus it should be filled in by someone who has the best understanding of and the best qualities (in my opinion: honesty, a good judge of character, consistent and firm in their decisions though not rusted in certain standards that do not evolve with the needs of the wiki or are perceptible to change when needed, and someone that is fair to everyone -regardless their personal relationship with that person) that are required for said function, as opposed to someone people see as their friend, though those things are in no way mutually exclusive. Therefore, I do not feel that I deserve the role for something I might have done while editing on the wiki as the function should be judged on qualities of character; the function should go to the one that would be the best for the position as a whole, even though s/he might not be the most popular or omnipresent person on the wiki. So to conclude, the only thing that I can say is that I do think of myself as a confident, honest person with a good judge of character who is strong enough to go against her friends and I make it a point to not jump to action without knowing the full story of things in order to avoid misunderstandings and hasty decisions -qualities I would look for in a bureaucrat, but those do not stand in relation to what I have done of "great works" on the wiki. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 06:46, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

• An important part of being a bureaucrat is not being biased against users. You must be able to turn down a friend's request for rollback if they do not deserve it, and be able to grant a user's request if you don't particularly like them. How important do you think this statement is, and do honestly feel you'll be able to not hold prejudiced views of users? Fire Ferret 04:26, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • I find that to be a very true statement as I have stressed the importance of honesty before -I find it an admirable quality, not only for a bureaucrat, but for any user or just any person in general. I see myself capable of making that distinction, as I have always tried to uphold the mindset that it doesn't matter what I think of a person on here. If said person is not someone I personally like, but s/he does comply to the set criteria for be given rollback rights, than my personal opinion really doesn't matter. It matter to the fact that I have to judge said person character and have to gauge why mindset that person has toward the community, but any personal likes or dislikes come to second place behind the community's need. We set criteria for a reason. I would also like to point out that this is again something that would not only pertain to bureaucrats, but to users in general for when they're voting for example (as I already stated above): people need to be able to discern between "friends first" and what is necessary for a community. The one they like best might not be the best for the "job" at said moment and thus should be "passed over", and then the person that is passed, should have the sense to realize that people did not vote against him/her or s/he was not given the rights due to personal issues with him/her, but mainly because of a community reason.
  • Being a strong advocate of looking at both sides of the story and being able to truly put things in perspective, I am quite confident that I can do that. I have to do that in my studies quite often, and that is something I learned to do quite well. Be it friends or "enemies" (I just used to word because of the contradiction between the two ^^"), I can put my own feelings aside to do what I have do to: make an unbiased and pro-community decision. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 08:04, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

• How would you handle situations that demand you to perform an action that you find yourself completely disagreeing with, but has been decided by the community to be put in policy? One example; a rollback should lose their rights if they make a finite number (3) of poor comments requiring deletion. If you do not find yourself in harsh disagreement to this, then consider a situation you would. If this were to then occur, what would your choice of action be and why? Vulmen (talk • EoK) 04:44, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • My choice of action to address the situation from a bureaucrat pov wouldn't differ much from my choice of action now with the sole point of difference that I would then have to make the absolute final call. As stated before, I value honesty and I look to both sides of the tale. We have our policies that indicate when a rollback is "eligible" to a loss of rights, and that would be the base on which the communication starts, and communications is really the key point of whatever action will be taken.
  • The given example soots me just fine as I am indeed of the mindset that it would be a gross exaggeration to remove rights over that, though it definitely is a point to address with said person. I would take the arguments brought by the community into account as to why they feel that said person's rights ought to be removed, but in the end -also according to said guidelines- it is the bureaucrat's decision whether or not to remove those rights. In the hypothesis that I would become bureaucrat and am in that position where I find myself in disagreement with the community on what to do, I would thoroughly look into it, see what that person's track record is with his rollback rights, see what that person's track record is in interaction with those of the community that are asking for a removal of his/her rights as there might be some personal issues behind such a need for strict action, and I would take our own policies into account as they often disagree with harsh actions (like it is similar to how people can quickly post on the admin board or even on a user's wall that they need to stop what they're doing lest they be blocked -which is not how things are done here). If the communication with said user and the ones that are asking for the rights removal is not going nowhere and I still find myself in disagreement, I would discuss the situation with the other bureaucrat, see what his opinion is about the matter, and then make a decision in the best interest of the community -which does not necessarily means following the loudest voices in the community. Part of a bureaucrat's "job" is to deal with said situations, and the perception of the community on something that is so-called a policy violation isn't always the right perception or in the line of the nature of said policy. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 08:04, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
    • Edit: Reading this again, I might have strayed from your question about whether or not I would enforce the policy I disagree with. Yes, I would enforce it as the community accepted that policy. However, if the policy on itself is flawed in some reason, I would likely move to change that again, using the examples of the practice in which it is flawed to make that point, but up until the point that it is changed, everyone is bound by it, otherwise, what's the point of having a policy? However, I do not believe in following the strict letter of a policy (call it an occupational hazard if you wish), so interpretation in the line of the policy without breaking it if that is possible is always an option, but I would still enforce it as I would be bound by it just as any other user is bound by it. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 08:43, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Voting

Support

1. Support — This vote certainly wasn’t an easy one to make, and in fact, I almost decided to not vote again. But given that I am the other bureaucrat, I decided that it would be best if I made my views on the matter clear. And those views are that between DC and Lostris, I find that while both more than satisfy the requirements, Lostris provides that little bit extra. Lostris isn’t just fair and balanced, she also carries the strongest conviction and therefore can best justify her discretion. Her honesty, in my view, also means that interests of the community would be better carried out at the bureaucrat level. Because of those qualities, she has very narrowly gained my vote. The 888th Avatar (talk) 05:22, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
2. Support — Like 888, I did not find this to be an easy decision by any means. While I believe DC is plenty qualified for bureaucratship, I believe Lostris possesses one characteristic that has urged me to vote for her. Her honesty and objectivity is made apparent in not only the questions above, but in many of the things she does on the wiki. Her extensive contributions to the War Room and participation in many debates that have also taken place on the IRC have really assured me that she would make an excellent bureaucrat; I support her nomination. Annawantimes (Talk) 06:12, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
3. Support — Though I have nominated her, this was ostensibly a hard decision between two people whom I respect and think would be excellent bureaucrats in their own rights. DC possesses all the qualities, if not more, that is required of a bureaucrat... He is friendly, open, logical, able to work with everyone, and able to be impartial at the times when it is called for. But with that said, Lady Lostris possesses those qualities and something else that helps her case; she is not hesitant to give her straight up opinion, however controversial, and will always stick to it until proved wrong - and she has shown that she can handle the pressure that comes with those qualities. To an extent, DC already does this, but LL's flair, honesty, and the frequency at which she has exhibited this on the wiki, and her confidence on the questions, tipped the scales for me. KettleMeetPot • wall 06:43, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
4. Support — In my opinion, Lady Lostris is the candidate who provided the most satisfying take on what means to be a bureaucrat. Not only that, but she was also blunt and swift in the questions process, which evinces assertiveness and decidedness, two of most important qualities for the task that bureaucratship entails. She has also proved time and again to be a good and fair judge of character and an all around people person, another necessary requirements for the job. ― Thailog 10:49, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
5. Support — In the past, Lostris has been able to show a strength and a strong amount of confidence in her actions and opinions, despite what others may have thought. She has shown herself capable of making a good decision, and sticking to it as well. Not to mention that she is friendly, and willing to help out others. She not only meets the criteria for 'crat, all of the nominees do, but she goes above and beyond the requirements, which is what's really important. Fire Ferret 17:32, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
6. Support — Lostris has shown much versatility, persistence, and conviction in her time on this wiki. She contributes greatly to editing and discussion, exemplifying her skill and necessary traits for 'cratship. With her strengths, I am certain Lostris will become an able 'crat with a good sense of promotion and demotion justification. I know she is be dedicated and swift in what she does, and I therefore have no other choice but this. Sparks • From • Hades 17:58, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
7. Support — Lady Lostris is a great administrator and she is very decisive. I trust her judgement and believe that she is just what this wiki needs for a bureaucrat. AvatarTylerftw (talk to me) 23:47, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

   Support — Lady Lostris has contributed to this Avatar wikia in many ways and she definitely is the most deserving(in my eyes) to gain bureaucratship. She's always on the lookout for vandalism and always strives to make pages better(from what I've seen). She has an extreme objective and unbiased view of everything. I feel if she had to give rollback rights to an "enemy" or take rollback rights from a friend, she could do it. She is strict in a good way and is always helpful, as I always go to her whenever I have questions. She always gives me a detailed answer as to how to solve my problem, and I can always count on her for the correct answer. When she edits pages, she's always very strict, clear, and of course correct. She is always present in the war room, debating for deleting of quotes, images, and pages, and all around wikia. When she debates, she voices her opinion very well and clearly and will listen to other opinions as well. If anyone is deserving, it is her. From her answers to the questions, you can see that being a bureaucrat to her only means that she gains some more rights, but everyone is equal in her eyes. Every contributing is welcome. She does have all the traits needed for being a bureaucrat as she mentioned, including honesty, confidence, and all other traits she mentioned.Chakra Sandwich

   Unfortunately, despite the detailed comment that was made, this vote isn't valid because you must be a contributor for a month before being able to vote on nominations for bureaucratship. Sorry! The 888th Avatar (talk) 03:17, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

8. Support — She is one of our best contributors and has done so much for the wiki. She has a very good attitude towards pretty much anything and everything and I trust her with this position on the wiki.  Technology Wizard  Wall  Contribs  04:15, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
9. Support — I emphatically support this nomination. LL is an excellent admin and personality on the wiki. As well as being a good editor, she is kind and helped me quite a bit when I first entered the Avatar Wiki community. Granted, she does have a strong opinion but unlike some online users, she knows how to toe the line, and does it with great modesty and aplomb. I cannot think of a better candidiate for bureaucrat, and believe that Lady Lostris fully deserves the highest honour the wiki has to offer. FooFoo (wall • contribs • blog) 08:53, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
10. Support — Like many others, I had a very hard time thinking this through, as every candidate is capable of doing the work needed, and Lostris and DC both have shown an excellent body of work with many admirable qualities. However, what has caused me to cast this support vote is that Lostris is one of the toughest, most-tested users this wiki has seen, while letting absolutely nothing get to her while sticking through every debate on this wiki. She also has proven herself to be a friendly and welcoming user despite all the flack she has had to take in the past. LL maintains herself in phenomenal ways, and there is no one I could trust more to make even bigger decisions than her. PSUAvatar14 Want to have a word? 17:49, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
11. Support — LL has proven to be an honest, decisive, and unbiased character, traits that are very important when it comes to granting and removing user rights. She has no trouble providing clear and confident opinions that are for the best of the wiki, and she is also very approachable and friendly. I think she is more than capable of accepting the responsibility of bureaucrat. Magicboy 10xx 20:18, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
12. Support — I vote for Lady Lostris, because, she's a great admin, and she's really helpful too. I don't think she'll disappoint anyone after taking this position. She's helped me out on things on the wikia, so I'm doing something nice back by voting for her. So thanks, Lady Lostris. King Bumis Heir • Talk • Fanon 20:26, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
13. Support — After a lot of consideration, I decided to jump on the Lostris bandwagon. DC and ARG are both great users, and they'd both make fantastic 'crats… However, I honestly believe that Lostris is exceptional, in that she seems to the most dedicated to the wiki. She edits everything, and I've gotten a hundred emails alerting me that she's edited a fanon of mine. She's a big help to everyone, and I have no doubt that she'll be a great bureaucrat. It's like she was born to be one. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 15:27, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
14. Support — Lady has always been a great contributor and force on this wiki. She speaks bluntly and puts her opinions out well. I believe that she meets the requirements to becoming a crat and exceeds those expectations. Despite the strong competition, I believe lady is the best person for the job.--Boomeraang Squad, always right back at ya. (wall • contribs) 02:04, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
15. Strong Support — This isn't a decision I make lightly. Had I been asked last year, I may have chosen DC or ARG. About LL, I've known and worked with her on here since I first saw her activities when she was just a rollback user. She wasn't a user for more than a few months at the time but she made good progress on edits and was mainly concerned with anti-vandalism work, which is also my main priority. Back then, I saw her as a quiet user who kept somewhat to herself, but she executed her work with efficiency and when she did contribute to a discussion, I saw a user who had the potential to accomplish greater things on the wiki. Now nearly two years later, she indeed has shown an enormous amount of progress in her dedication channeled into her edits and has become more vocal and opinionated in discussions/forums that she's undertaken. Despite all the pressure situations she's been under during that time; notably the attacks on her and the other admins and 888 by Omar and the Wikequalists, she's managed to remain very level-headed and display extreme rationality in her thoughts and opinions as well as her edits. At times this trait, while very admirable and desired, have left her cold and occasionally embittered, but the passion she displays for the wiki is well-disguised ferocity. During her work as an admin, she's displayed restraint in the above-mentioned situations which would sometimes rattle other users, including 888 and her predecessor, but at the same time has been willing to assist other users in their endeavours, myself included. Additionally, she's accepted positions in some of the group or team projects that the wiki has. Lady, you have my vote and I wish you well in your quest to become the next bureaucrat of AW. H-Man: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 00:44, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral — Lostris is absolutely astounding as far as editing goes and I haven't a doubt that she could handle very well every responsibility a bureaucrat should be able to. The only thing that gives Dc an edge, imo, is that he has a bit more of a level head and has a bit more experience, the latter of which doesn't carry much weight. Lostris will undoubtedly receive my vote the next time these elections roll around. (: Azulazulazula (Life is like a tall cliff...) 20:30, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
2. Neutral — Yup, I want to support her. But ARG was my choice. Lostris-chan is capable of defending her views, which makes her highly qualified. She is a nice user, and if you look at her wall is full of messages asking for help – TechFilmer🍍 16:28, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — In the past Lostris has showed lack of appreciation for others' efforts and has tried to force her view points on other people. She might be an active editor, but what has happened in those situations will be hard to erase. I do not mind her being unhesitant; however, I do not find her restricting others of being straight forward with their views and, furthermore, mocking them to be a good trait. Thus, I am inclined to oppose. Matey Y. (talk • A:TLoM)  13:31, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not sure how persuasive you could consider these complaints given that the community rejected an essentially identical characterisation of Lostris by a margin of 34-2. Sorry MateyY, but frankly, this vote doesn't seem to be motivated by the principles of this wiki. The 888th Avatar (talk) 13:38, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Thailog

Thailog (wall · contribs · editcount · logs)

Nomination

I, Henryjh98, nominate Thailog for bureaucratship. He's been on this wiki for four years and has improved it alot. He runs a bot that cleans up the wiki when bad edits are made, and is a kind and friendly member of the community. Thailog knows what is right to do and he will help you if you need it. In 2010, he became an admin, a position which he truly deserved. Now, he deserves the higher position of being a bureacrat. If he becomes a 'crat, then I feel he would make the right decisions when it came to making users rollbacks, whether that be given them the rights or denying them the rights. Being a bureaucrat is an important task, one of which Thailog has the ability to handle wisely. I believe that Thailog has the potential to become yet another great bureaucrat and live up to the expectations of one. HenryJh 98 (Blogs • ATSW • FFF) 20:12, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your considering me, but I must decline. I'm an active admin on two wikis, a bureaucrat or other two, and a full time editor on one of those. So, I have a demanding workload as it is, and I certainly don't feel up to the task of managing rollback requests. I rather have someone who wants to take it up, instead of someone who'll fall behind this extra responsibility. But thanks anyway. ― Thailog 20:27, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

AvatarRokusGhost

AvatarRokusGhost (wall · contribs · editcount · logs)

Nomination

I, Voltorb, nominate AvatarRokusGhost for bureaucratship on Avatar Wiki. I believe that ARG is a very helpful, kind, and all together awesome admin. ARG would be awesome for the job because he could help both the fanon portal and main portal. In my experience with him, he is very helpful at resolving conflicts, helping out other users when they ask, and having a good solution to every problem. He is also very responsible, and would not abuse the additional abilities of being a 'crat. ARG is a great admin, who I believe would make an ever better bureaucrat on Avatar Wiki. SixMoodyDwarves Voltorb Is Back! 22:16, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination, Voltorb. I accept. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 22:47, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Questions

• What does being a bureaucrat mean to you? What does it mean to be a good bureaucrat? PSUAvatar14 Want to have a word? 01:51, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • My approach for being a bureaucrat would really be no different than my approach to being an admin: just a regular user carrying a couple extra responsibilities and having some extra buttons to push. The privileges may be different for admin (blocking, protecting, deleting, editing MediaWiki), versus bureaucrat (granting rollback and monitoring user rights as need be). Being a good bureaucrat means exercising good judgment with the extra rights and managing user rights-based issues in the way most befitting for the community, always considering the users involved with the big picture in mind. Should the community decide to trust me with these extra responsibilities, I will take it upon myself to perform up to their expectation. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 02:13, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

• As a bureaucrat, you will work with 888 with a lot of tasks that 'maybe' disturb your real life. Do you ready with those tasks? Why? Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 15:37, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not expect being bureaucrat to disturb my real life, should I get it. I’d be spending the same amount of time here, doing the same things, except I’d have a few extra responsibilities. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 02:15, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
• "As a bureaucrat, you must be able to work with everyone below you." Do you agree with that quote? Why? Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 15:37, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not agree with the quote. No user is “below” another. The 888th Avatar is not “above” the user with 10 edits who registered yesterday. In response to the other part of your inquiry, a user on here must strive to work alongside all others in the community, no matter what issues arise. This is essential to our positive, collaborative atmosphere. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 02:15, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
• What do you think makes you a suitable user to become a bureaucrat? What do you think you can accomplishment if you are to become a bureaucrat? HenryJh 98 (Blogs • ATSW • FFF) 19:33, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • My distinguishing feature would be that I would constantly make extra certain that every action I took is the right one. Even if I already have a strong idea if I one way or another about granting or rejecting a rollback request, I would still take the time to look extensively into the user’s history and contributions. In short, when there’s a tradeoff between thoroughness and speediness, I will almost always go for thoroughness. My responses may be slow at times, but they will always be justified. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 02:15, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
• Who would you be more inclined to give rollbackship to, a user with a few quantitive edits or a user with a lot of small edits? – TechFilmer🍍 20:16, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • There are other things that are more important in deciding on who to give rollback to, such as behavior history and anti-vandal conduct. The simple answer to your question, though, is that – all other factors equal – I would lean to the user who makes fewer edits to accomplish the same goal, as it indicates they may be more composed and poised in their actions on the wiki. It’s worth noting that it’s better for recent changes in general to make fewer edits to do the same work. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 02:15, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

• An important part of being a bureaucrat is not being biased against users. You must be able to turn down a friend's request for rollback if they do not deserve it, and be able to grant a user's request if you don't particularly like them. How important do you think this statement is, and do honestly feel you'll be able to not hold prejudiced views of users? Fire Ferret 04:26, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a very important statement, because it’s a reminder that the position of bureaucrat is bigger than any one user. It’s the community that trusts a bureaucrat with his or her rights, so they have to live up to that trust and make every one of their actions in the interest of what’s best for the community. In response to the second part of your question, I actually do not feel I’ll be completely devoid of prejudice. At the end of the day, users are people, and we all carry our own biases. However, I would not factor in my own biases in deciding whether to grant rollback. No matter what I think of the user, I would use the same process. As I said to Henry’s question above, I would look through a user’s contributions. I would also consider a user’s conduct, etiquette and understanding of how the wiki works to base my decision on. Whatever my personal view of the user, it would not be one of the factors. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 09:10, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
• How would you handle situations that demand you to perform an action that you find yourself completely disagreeing with, but has been decided by the community to be put in policy? One example; a rollback should lose their rights if they make a finite number (3) of poor comments requiring deletion. If you do not find yourself in harsh disagreement to this, then consider a situation you would. If this were to then occur, what would your choice of action be and why? Vulmen (talk • EoK) 04:44, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • If the community decided on a policy that said a user that I found perfectly trustworthy and capable to be a rollback user had to have their privilege revoked, then of course I would remove their rollback rights. Even if I’m not happy about it, policy is policy, period. Bureaucrats and other users with user rights are trusted with such by the community, so they must respect the community’s will at all times. If appropriate, though, I might start a forum about it. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 09:10, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Voting

Support

1. Support — I believe that ARG will bring the same dedication and humility he has as an admin to his position as bureaucrat. Mageddon725 - talk 05:29, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
2. Support — ARG has been a well disciplined fanon admin and admin; I'd like that he becomes a bureaucrat, not only because of his kindness, but to his strictness. When it is needed to be hard on someone he does so, and he knows this limit with firm grip and gentle touch. Master Ratava熱沓霸師傅 10:52, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
3. Voltorb Supports! — Per my nomination above. SixMoodyDwarves Voltorb Is Back! 12:56, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

   If by "Per my nomination above" you mean "could help both the fanon portal" then I can't agree with that reasoning. I'm not contesting his other qualities you listed, but it seems that your support is predicated on the notion that ARG's involvement in fanon is a prerequisite for bureaucratship, and again it reiterates the fallacious notion that fanon is neglected because there isn't a group with special rights solely dedicated to it. Fanon and bureaucratship are completely unrelated domains, as it basically entails approving/rejecting rollback requests. ARG won't be more involved in the fanon portal just because of it. ― Thailog 13:36, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

   Ok, I will elaborate further. ARG is a kind, well-deserving admin. He will consider all views of the situation, as when I've worked with him before, he has been both helpful and kind, while keeping close to himself the fact that he was guiding me. If elected, I'm sure he will view all the sides of a candidate for rollback user's story, and will always be around. I believe that in my and the wiki's best interest, ARG is the best candidate for the job. SixMoodyDwarves Voltorb Is Back! 19:34, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

4. Support — ARG has a better manner and touch to situations than any of the other administrators nominated here. He is also a very dedicated and humble user who doesn't try to enforce his personal views on yours. All in all, he is the best candidate. Matey Y. (talk • A:TLoM)  13:24, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

   If I'm reading your vote correctly, you're accusing others of enforcing views on others. Can I just remind you that there is no attempt at censorship on this wiki? As I've stated previously, I'm not sure your attitude of self-victimisation is conducive to the cohesion of this community. The 888th Avatar (talk) 13:46, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

   Can I remind you that "gross misinterpretation of the truth" is against our policy; you yourself have censored people on the wiki. Matey Y. (talk • A:TLoM)  17:13, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

   Please raise these examples of where I have "censored" an opinion. Otherwise, I will find that you are making a baseless accusation, which is a personal attack. In that instance, I will warn you that you are running out of chances before I find that you are consistently failing to adhere to our policies, and in the interests of preventing further disruption to the community, action should be taken. This can't go on forever, MateyY. The 888th Avatar (talk) 17:27, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

   Omar was allowed to come back under conditions that clearly showed intentional censorship. Also, what you are doing right now—telling me that I cannot support ARG with the arguments I have made just because one of them doesn't even contradict the policy of this wiki—I consider censorship. ARG has earned my respect because of the qualities listed above. I have the right which cannot be taken away by any other law or policy (that is why it is a right) to speak my mind and favor someone in an election as such. Thus, I find it censorship for you to disallow me to do so just because you disagree with the validity of my arguments based on a non-existing argument. Matey Y. (talk • A:TLoM)  22:19, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

   Based on your comment, you simply bandied about "censorship" without actually taking care to use it with its actual meaning, so you can, again, paint yourself as the victim of imagined admin overlords. Refusing to allow Omar to "organise", in other words "conspire", is the same as refusing to allow him to continue to harass groups of users on the wiki. If you think that refusing to allow further harassment is "censorship", then any policy enforcement would be. Furthermore, "censorship" would entail me removing your comment, rather than simply taking a stand against it, so your bluster about "rights" (which is incorrect as a website is private property) is just that, bluster. It's quite clear that you're not interested in constructive cooperation with your random reversions to personal attacks, so consider this a warning. The 888th Avatar (talk) 02:06, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

5. Support — ARG, is very capable of being a 'cart. He is able to look at the pros and cons of everything, and IMO is able to judge people well, AND if they fail, be able to give them tips on how to improve themselves. – TechFilmer🍍 16:23, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral — It's my view that all three candidates satisfy the requirements to be a bureaucrat. However, particularly because of the slight flip-flop in terms of whether ARG would enforce a policy that he didn't agree with compared to a previous forum discussion, I believe that DC and Lostris slightly edge him out. The 888th Avatar (talk) 05:22, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
2. Neutral — I believe ARG is a good admin as all have stated above, but I'd prefer with someone else, as ARG will be my third vote. As my wiki-lifetime, I didn't see any believe for ARG to be a future-'crat, and sometime, he is not suit with the bureaucrat-responsibility to remove rollback rights, to manage the wiki, but as a person, I like him most. I believe he is a good admin, but to be a bureaucrat, he didn't ready yet. Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 13:39, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
3. Neutral — ARG is a great guy, and has done a great job with his adminship. However, per Thailog above, the work he has done with fanon space does not really show a need for becoming a bureaucrat. There is no denying his body of work, but I would prefer to see ARG become more active around the other spaces to show more of a preparedness for becoming a bureaucrat - whereas DC and Lostris both have shown a more significant presence across the board. PSUAvatar14 Want to have a word? 00:45, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very weak oppose — I would be a liar if I said that ARG didn't have outstanding character and integrity or if I said that he wasn't a prolific mediator and/or editor. Unfortunately, though, I feel that, in addition to granting/revoking user rights, a bureaucrat also needs to be very active on the canon side of things, as 'crats will be approached very often with questions about editing/MoS stuff. I simply don't feel that ARG is active enough on the canon side to handle this, and I feel the other two candidates would do a much better job in this respect. Azulazulazula (Life is like a tall cliff...) 20:26, October 7, 2012 (UTC)