TyA TalkContribs • Last 20 Forum - Main - User talk editsEdit count


I'm nominating myself for 'cratship because I believe that we should work on changing the image of a 'crat from an elusive beast that comes out once every blue moon if summoned with a jar of 'crat treats to members of the active community who are visible to others and ones that are available at most hours of the day. Currently our 'crats are in a state of inactivity because they rarely join in discussions and be part of the community. I'd like to see a change from our current 'crat method to being one of active users who actively participate in the community.

I nominated myself because I believe I am a capable administrator who can be relied upon to do things in the best interest of the community. However, I do acknowledge that I am not perfect and have made some mistakes in my time here and believe that I have learned from those mistakes. So I now ask the community to decide if they will trust me with the position of 'crat.

I, TyA, accept this nomination for bureaucratship. I understand that the only difference between bureaucratship and the administrative ability that I already have is that I am able to assign user rights. I understand that I may not, for any reason, delegate any form of adminship to any user who has not passed an appropriate RFA or RFB. Lastly, I understand that the respective agreement in regards to standard adminship still applies. Signed, 22px-Logo.svg.png22#.png 20:43, December 11, 2011 (UTC).

Questions for the nomineeEdit

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
With how little difference there is between a ‘crat and an admin, I'd mostly continue doing the things I do now (Deletions, blocks, chat mod-ing) with the addition of granting userrights when requested.

2. What are your best contributions to the RuneScape Wiki, and why?
All of my edits are of equal value to the Wiki, since they're all mostly behind the scene edits (reverts) or community things (like welcoming users and answering their questions).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
I have had a few minor issues. When I removed the AWB accounts from the botsenabled section of the checkpage to make them unable to use AWB's autosave feature, Cook messaged me about it and asked why I did it. I wanted a reason other than "Policy" because Cook wants us to be thinkers instead of blind followers, so I ended up making up reasons to try and help my point rather than simply stating "Policy says so". This lead to the creation of Forum:Bot policy clarification, where that issue was resolved. I ended up telling him the truth of the matter and what I had done, and in the future I am just going to tell my reason and accept the criticism up front instead of delaying it.

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)Edit

  • What makes you significantly different from other active administrators? What jobs have you done that influenced the RuneScape Wiki today? --Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 21:49, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
    I am not significantly different from the other active administrators. I'm usually in Chat and IRC, where people request me do things like blocks and deletions. As far as things go, a large portion of my use of tools have been done by the request of others. 22px-Logo.svg.png22#.png 23:23, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
  • Would you have closed any of the RfAs this year differently? The ones this year are here, from yours down in the successful section and from Brains's down in the unsuccessful section. Please explain. --LiquidTalk 23:17, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
    Fergie's would be a hard one to decide. I would have closed it as unsuccessful because with how I remember the RfA it was a lot more close, but reading over it again I find it hard to close it as unsuccessful. I cannot think of much else to say over that one or the the other ones. 22px-Logo.svg.png22#.png 00:28, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
  • Community views are extremely divided on the roles, responsibilities and activity level a bureacrat should assume. What is your own personal interpretation of a bureacrat, and why do you hold that opinion? Ronan Talk 22:28, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
    In my view, bureaucrats should remain in the community and the responsibilities a bureaucrat assumes is to ensure that RfAs/RfBs/and BRs are filled in a timely manner. By becoming a bureaucrat, one should not remove themselves from the community because the community gave them the tools to perform the community's will, not to become inactive and separated from the community. 22px-Logo.svg.png22#.png 22:44, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Edit

Support - Zamorak is an extremely helpful person in the community. He does great contributions to the wiki and helps out to all that need it. He will do fine as a bureaucrat, and hopefully shorten the time of getting people's requests by a day or two. Haidro (talk) 21:25, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Having another 'crat wouldnt hurt, especially since it can take a week + for a b'crat request to be completed. I think Zammy is active enough, and I have no doubt that he will do well as a cratKing Roald chathead King TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 21:38, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support - most of the bureaucrats are either retired, inactive or go on once a week. Another one would help hugely. Crafting-icon Bluefire2 (Talk | Edit me) Ancient effigy detailOil4 I made this 21:53, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - To be honest, I didn't want to take this stand at first. But now, I feel that it is necessary to take an opposing position. I trust Ty with the responsibilities of a bureaucrat. He's already proven his ability to be a part of the community. He has stated himself that he can be bold through admitting his guilt in making up excuses, which I feel is actually a positive. He's active and has his number of high quality contributions. Another striking good point of his is that he is readily contactable through a number of methods. Obviously, Taylor isn't hot-headed, and can be called upon to close nominations as needed. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he would make a good 'crat.

Let's get to the point, however. There is absolutely no clear need for the tools presented by the candidate. Said candidate has only stated that his current standpoint on what a bureaucrat is is such: elusive beast that comes out once every blue moon if summoned with a jar of 'crat treats to members of the active community...
I disregard this as an inappropriate, incorrect declaration and believe that our currently semi-active 'crats are clearly working hard and doing what they can to provide for the community already. Zammy is already performing well in what he is being called forth to do, and can be extremely busy at times as well. Although it never hurts to have another 'crat, from what I have seen, Zamorak does not show a clear need for the tools, as defined here. Based on this, I can say that Zamorak, very unfortunately, is not under my jurisdiction and/or opinion, whichever you may call it, to be a bureaucrat at this time. --クールネシトーク 21:56, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Slight support - What everything Nessie said in the top half is true, and I can see what she means in the second part. However, whilst I think Tyler was trying to make a joke at the wrong place, I don't see that as being enough reason to oppose Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 22:11, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Based on the joke made on here and comments made on CoD's RfCM I do not believe Tyler takes things like these seriously Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 20:58, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
How were the comment Ty made on Cod's rfcm un-serious? Matt (t) 21:42, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
The "It's just chat mod" comment makes it look like he believes the right should just be handed out to anybody with half an interest or a good edit count, regardless of their activity within the chat Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 17:58, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
That might be his opinion. How does that = bad bureaucrat? ajr 18:07, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Not yet - You have the potential to do this, but it's too soon for you right now. It's things like this that tell me you still have quite a way to go. You blocked that user for absolutely zero reason, and the one half-hearted reason you did give (violation of UTP) was nonsense and untrue. You blocked him purely because another administrator asked you to, without considering the case at all yourself. It's careless behaviour like that, and the immaturity you show in IRC and on-site chat (and even in your above statement) that worry me. I know that everyone behaves more or less immaturely in IRC, but I feel that this would cloud your judgement when closing RfAs, and prevent you from being a neutral body. I've also found you too intimidating or rude to newer users, the most recent example of which that I can think of being the editor that was trying to upload an image of the Golden Scythe. The attitude conveyed to that user led to her trolling and insulting other users, which could easily have been avoided. I also don't like the way you slurred our current bureaucrats in your opening statement. It's been said many, many times that they aren't active enough, but it's not the sort of thing I'd want to see a prospective bureaucrat say on his application. I believe, in the future, you could make a fine bureaucrat, but not now. Ronan Talk 22:44, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

There is no law saying that bureaucrats can't have opinions. The fact that he admits that none of our bureaucrats are active is true, and he has every right to say it. I really don't understand what that has to do with him being able to neutrally close RfAs and such.
The fact is, there is no such thing as complete neutrality. What we want is someone who is able to set their opinions aside, and nothing that you have said suggests that Zammy couldn't do that. ajr 00:56, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
You could have at least read my comment before coming out with something like that. I said, at the start of my final point, that they're not active enough myself, and I have no issue with him doing the same. What I don't like about it is the immature and inappropriate way he insulted them. If you're saying that kind of thoughtlessness would have no effect when making important judgements, you need to reconsider. Ronan Talk 16:29, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
I think the difference of opinion here comes from my not seeing his comment as offensive, but rather a strong opinion. As I said, everyone has opinions - bureaucrats are no exception. ajr 17:47, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
Flay, just wondering, but since when is calling people inactive when it is true an insult? Because that is exactly what zam is saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:58, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
I'll say it a third time. We know they're inactive. He's perfectly within his rights to say as such. He is not, however, right to call users in the position he is seeking to attain "elusive beasts". They still put time and effort into what they do here, and don't deserve to be talked about that way by someone who is looking to fill their shoes. Ronan Talk 16:04, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Some people may say I'm inactive by looking my contribs, and yes it's true that I haven't made any edits for awhile, but that doesn't mean I don't check the Yew Grove and RfA pages at least once a day, so I hope that my opinion is still taken into account here. Besides the fact that I don't believe we are in dire need of any new bureaucrats at the moment, you are still one of our newer administrators. You haven't even been a sysop for a year, so no offense, but if we need a new 'crat, then we should first look to the admins that have been around much longer (and of course I'm not talking about me, just to make sure I don't get jumped on, lol). You're a great guy, a great wikian, and an exceptional sysop, but I just don't see any reason to support this right now. Andrew talk 23:38, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support. Being a bureaucrat shouldn't be this big of a deal. We already trust this user with checkuser, a far more sensitive tool that could cause far more harm than 'crat rights. If we can't trust him with that, we're screwed.

The only concern that I'd have is that he doesn't explain his rational in as much detail as I'd like to see, but considering the complete lack of rational that our current 'crats give when closing discussions, this factor would seem to be moot. ajr 00:39, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - While Ty is an excellent person and has served admirably in his role as administrator, I cannot support this for a number of reasons, which shall be enumerated below.

I agree with the statement that none of our bureaucrats are that active, but I think there are other users better suited for this position than Ty at this point, and I would rather have one of them take on the job.

I also have concerns about Ty's discretion as a bureaucrat. While he has been an excellent administrator, I would not want him to close RfAs yet, because his statements to me at various points in time, as well as his response to my question above, lead me to believe that Ty would take an activist approach to closing RfAs. I would rather not have that broad a scope for RfAs, and hence would not support this on those grounds alone. There are some who would disagree, but I do not believe that an activist approach is the best one.

Then, there is the issue of clarity and thoughtfulness. A bureaucrat must be able to clearly explain his decision should the need arise. This is not suggesting that they must do it all the time; rather, they should be able to give a clear and well-thought response should the need arise. I am concerned about Ty's ability to do this, as he is one of the more reticent users in formal discussions. Furthermore, his grammatical skills are not quite the best, and that is a barrier to professional communication.

Lastly, and least importantly, I believe that Ty is a bit too not-serious at times, using too many deliberate misspellings of words. I would rather a bureaucrat avoid that, but this is one of the lesser points, and something whose fulfillment I am not stringent about.

Therefore, I cannot support Ty for bureaucrat at this time. --LiquidTalk 01:08, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Support (see below) - This is reminiscent of the request that Gareth had back in May of this year to become a bureaucrat. As Murphy had stated in that request, "When the day comes we need another 'crat, Gaz will be the first to have my full support." As I go on to state back on May 19, "Until such a time arises, I do not feel that anyone needs the additional rights of UserManagement or RevisionDelete as the later can be solved through additional and enhancing the existing edit filters."

We might be making the bureaucrat group right bigger and more difficult to be requested than it should. It's like the elephant in the room when one of these users makes an edit or a decision. I am hesitant to say that points on time as an administrator to play a role when some individuals get the sysop group right in under a year from joining. Others wait years, it shouldn't be treated like a rare jewel, but it also shouldn't become the norm. We have 14 out of 86 sysops (including bureaucrats) currently active on the wiki including myself. Maybe we should change this or maybe not. The tools that a bureaucrat has that are separate from a sysop are really just the expanded UserManagement and DeleteRevision (of which, only five non-bureaucrats have meaning one step away from all non-staff/helper/vstf rights.).

In relation to Liquid above, I take my time writing just about everything I do. If it sounds remotely out of place, I leave it out or catch it quickly and attempt to correct the viewpoint in a following comment or reply. I may not be as active as I once was, I might not be giving opinions in the Yew Grove as much as I used to, but this has not meant I've spent less time trying to read. This is how I think other sysops, users and other bureaucrats are from time to time. Not all bureaucrats should be judged on the opinions they give or if they are rushed. I do like any user that can explain his or her decision without regard for their own well-being. That might be putting someone on the spot, but giving a decision without an explanation is equivalent to the Department of Motor Vehicles denying you a license without a summary of why you have been pushed away.

Regarding the grammar that an individual uses, it might be fine for a typo and for friends here and there. However, I do not know if Zamorak does this more often than that of using proper English, so I further extend my neutrality to this point. Sorry Zamorak, but I don't see a case for really obtaining or outright preventing the group right from your account. Ryan PM 06:31, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

I'm changing from Neutral to Support due to factors shown below. Whether people know it or not, they are indeed making this group right bigger than it is. Continuing to quote Chris (Uberfuzzy), even after his departure from Wikia, is nauseating. This mentality about "[understanding] what that the roll is meant for, and not just another checkbox" needs to change. We all volunteer, but seniority and a non-existent limit on 'crats needs to be removed entirely. We are not Wookipedia and not like other wikis. Let's make that clear.
Any currently active administrator would be fine in this role, if not, why do they keep their administrative role? We all got the sysop group right for one thing or another, but who says that being an administrator meant that we needed to throw out our opinions? The same can be said for bureaucrats. In this, I think we should, no.. I know we need to change our opinions on what it means to be a bureaucrat. In all seriousness, if you can't trust his decisions on who to give rights to or decide in future sysop requests, then how can we trust said user with CheckUser. Ryan PM 00:15, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm all with the Helmet of Liquidation here... Ty is a great guy and all, and we are starting to borderline on the fact that we might need a new 'crat soon, but if I look at the administrator list right now, there's a few names that I would place above Ty in who is most trustworthy and suited for the job. Set up another RfB in late 2012 or early 2013, and I would say yes... But for now, I just don't think you're ready for this. Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 23:07, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Nuetral- Zam, although I would think you would be great as a 'crat, to me it seems like the wiki is running smoothy right now and always has been. So what if we have to summon the 'crats with a mystical cookie jar? Everything is still under control and going fine. As far as we know, or I know anyways, the 'crats could be behind the scenes, checking up from time to time making sure everything is going as planned for the wiki. But until that time when the 'crats vanish, just keep doin' what your doin', being a great administrator and a community member. Hair 03:47, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

It took over a week for a bureaucrat request to be filled recently, fyi. Urbancowgurl777 (talk) 04:00, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
So? What does that hav to do with anything? Hair 22:18, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
Your basis for opposition was that we don't need any crats because everything is supposedly under control. So I pointed out that a b'crat request was left unfulfilled for over a week, therefore hinting that not everything is running as smoothly as you may think. Urbancowgurl777 (talk) 22:43, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
One week isn't bad. It could be a cause of many things. First, crats have their own lifes. The runescape wiki isn't their source of existence. Secondly, they could of been working on one thing, such as taking away Forum Admin rights with getting rid of the forums, and it slid over their/his/her mind, which happened recently. With one case of a 'crat being late for the job doesn't mean we need a whole new set of crats. Also, I'm not opposing Zam, per it saying Nuetral, I just think everything is running as it should be on the wiki, User rights wise. Hair 22:57, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
User:Merovingian has his own life too, but he doesn't do anything on this wiki anymore. Still doesn't mean "crats having lifes" is a reason not to fix the inactivity of all of them. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:45, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I don't think I am understanding my reasoning much anymore. Hair 03:43, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Support- Per Look-Directly-Up Hair 03:43, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Zamorak's a good guy, from what I've seen. I think he's capable. So let's 'crat him? Oh come on guys, there's more to it then that. I agree with your interpretation of the current bureaucrat situation. They are very inactive, and we do need to draw them out with special 'crat cookies. But is that such an issue? We never have circumstances where there is an urgent need for a bureaucrat. And even then, if we require a 'crat, posting on their talk page usually nudges them to do their thing.

I think we need to consider whether 'crats being overly inactive is such a bad thing? Has there been problems in the past where we haven't had enough 'crats to deal with a situation? Specific problems? The administrator role has become one that is frequent throughout the community, and many members of our community are admins. This is somewhat good, because it brings the role more down to Earth and there are always admins available to fight vandalism (back in the day, we used to have terrible situations where hours on end there would be no admins available to block vandals). But 'crats should be neutral, and so really, it is better for them not to become involved in popular issues throughout the wiki.

I hate the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But it seems that having more bureaucrats would be fixing a non-existent problem. Chicken7 >talk 04:59, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I don't see any reason why we shouldn't. He's active, trustworthy, and knows what he's doing. I think people are taking this far too seriously and are looking at this too deeply. Take it for what it is - the ability to grant other users rights. Can Zamorak be trusted to do that? Yes. That's all bureaucrat is, and that's all it's ever been, and that's all it ever will be. Dragon 2h sword oldCallofduty4 Talk 13:37, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

EDIT - He already has checkuser anyway, which prerequisites far more ability and trust than bureaucrat rights do. Giving him bureaucrat rights is a very small jump in comparison to giving him checkuser. Dragon 2h sword oldCallofduty4 Talk 13:37, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
For clarification, I don't oppose because I don't trust his ability to check a few boxes in Special:UserRights. Anyone can do that. I have a bigger issue with his positions in closing RfAs. --LiquidTalk 15:42, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
Closing RfAs is a subjective process. Everyone will have differing opinions, and it's not hard to tally up votes and weigh up opinions to determine consensus. If he can be trusted to check those boxes, he will be trusted to perform the required paperwork before checking those boxes. Dragon 2h sword oldCallofduty4 Talk 19:23, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with Callofduty4, and would further expand upon the fact that we already trust him with highly confidential and sensitive information from checkuser - if we can't trust him to make appropriate judgements as a bureaucrat, how can we trust him with tools that can have legal repercussions? I am really dissapointed by the massive deal that bureaucrat is being inflated into here. ajr 21:35, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
This is not entirely about trust, you know. I do agree with you that bureaucrat isn't a very important role; however, is it ultimately necessary to hand this out like street vendors do with flyers? Absolutely not. Personally, I will continue to stay faithful to my belief that the number of bureaucrats should stay low. --クールネシトーク 21:41, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
Why? What possible benefit is there to having a small number of bureaucrats? More bureaucrats means that requests get done faster, and considering that we are all volunteers here, that is a good thing. I do not get this attitude about bureaucrat being some elusive trophy for only the best of our admins. Seriously, all they can do is check an addition five boxes and press another button - it should not be this big of a deal. ajr 21:43, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
To expand on this, why are we limiting the number of bureaucrats when we don't limit the number of admins? User -> admin is a massive step up in terms of abilities gained, and as such that should be a big leap in trust. All bureaucrats get is a bit more access to a couple of tools, that should be a very small leap in trust. In practicality, it should be easier to pass an RfB as an admin than an RfA as a non-admin.
Furthermore, before someone tells me that we don't need 50 people jumping over each other to check those boxes, why not? This wiki could run with one bureaucrat, yes. We could also run with one admin. We could also run with one user. However, since we are all volunteers with lives outside of this wiki, there is no harm at all in letting more people help out in more ways - especially if they are very trusted users as TyA obviously is. ajr 21:47, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, I was hoping to avoid this, but since it's been brought up, I might as well. The point of checkuser is different from the point of a bureaucrat. Checkuser is primarily a countervandalism technical tool. Bureaucrat is primarily consensus determination (the relevant portion being RfAs). I trust his judgment on the former; I don't quite trust it on the latter. I don't see why the comparison to checkuser is being brought up so much, as the Ty's ability to use checkuser has little to do with this request. --LiquidTalk 21:50, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
I see, so you can trust him with a sensitive tool which is only available to 19 local checkusers across Wikia, but you can't trust him with the simple task of reading through a discussion and finding which arguments are common to both sides, and which side is getting more widespread support? In my experience, there is only one type of trust on wikiland - you either trust someone or you don't. You either trust someone with closing YG threads (like sysops can do), or you don't trust them to be able to remove their own opinions enough to do that. If you have multiple types of trust depending on what the tools do, that is your choice, but I respectfully suggest that you are making these tools into a bigger deal than they are as a result. ajr 22:08, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
(I can't count the colons anymore) Sigh. How many times do I have to say this? I don't give a damn about the tools. Any man and his dog can go fiddle with a few check boxes. If Ty was just going to take orders from Karlis and fiddle with the check boxes, I don't care. But the point is, the process of finding the prevailing arguments and giving them weight is a highly judgmental process, particularly the weight assignment portion. I'm not comfortable with Ty in that regard. However, checkuser judgment is quite different. You go and determine if there is probable cause for two accounts being the same person... just go and look at the names and half the time you'll be right. There isn't a heavy analogous "weight assignment" step in checkuser, which I do not believe is all that sensitive. --LiquidTalk 22:16, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
One thing we've always admired about your wiki is even though you have a way above average number of sysops, you have managed to keep the bureaucrat list small, showing that you understand what that the roll is meant for, and not just another checkbox.
— Uberfuzzy

No, bureaucrat rights are not a dramatic "elusive trophy", but nor are they intended to be handed out like sweets. Ronan Talk 22:34, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

lol "roll". That is all. Suppa chuppa Talk 22:35, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
perhaps he is not the best at inspiring perfectionism. Ronan Talk 22:39, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
Wondering what one random person has to do with this but... One thing I've always disliked about this wiki is precisely that. Urbancowgurl777 (talk) 22:50, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
The key word is "we". Ronan Talk 22:54, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
It's great to know that a former member of Wikia staff, a company which is famous for completely disregarding what a wiki is and should be appreciates our misguided attitude towards bureaucrats. Why shouldn't bureaucrat rights be handed out like sweets? ajr 23:17, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, can we please stop quoting Uberfuzzy? ʞooɔ 01:56, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
Stupid question, stupid argument. Use your intelligence. A valid discussion is fine, but things like that are just a waste of both our time. Ronan Talk 08:26, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
No, not at all. It is not a stupid question. Why shouldn't bureaucrat rights be handed out like candy? If you can't answer it, then you obviously don't have a good reason. ajr 14:56, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
...are you honestly asking me to explain to you why the ability to change any user's rights whenever and to whatever you desire, and be trusted with the final judgement and decision on RfAs, should not be given to any idiot that asks for it? Ronan Talk 16:28, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
No, I am asking you why we should be limiting access to this group to barely active users when there are plenty of active, trusted users who could benefit from access to it. Also, you seem to have things confused. First of all, all bureaucrat actions are publicly logged, and bureaucrats will have their tools removed if they are found to have abused them (not that that will be a problem with any of our current sysops/crats). Second, bureaucrats always need to explain their closing rational for RfAs, meaning that even if it is given to a whole bunch of "idiot"s, they will be forced to use the tools appropriately anyways. Also, since only admins can become bureaucrats, you are implying that all of our admins cannot be trusted with the 'crat tools - I disagree. If our admins can't be trusted with bureaucrat tools, even less so can they be trusted with admin tools, since admin tools have a greater potential for unrecorded abuse or mishap.
Also, given your complaint with Zamorak's nomination statement in regards to bureaucrats, it really is amusing to watch you then bash every admin on the wiki essentially, while at the same time proving that you have a complete misunderstanding of what bureaucrat rights entail. ajr 16:37, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
If you could stop taking my words so dramatically out of context, we'd be long done here. You asked "why shouldn't bureaucrat rights be handed out like candy?". The phrase means to give something in great quantity and with little thought or effort. It appeared as though you asking why any user that requested the rights shouldn't be granted them, not only 13 sysops. Now it looks like the latter. It doesn't really matter either way, if you use common sense you'll know the answer. I'm not quite sure what you mean about administrators having more potential for abuse, every user across the entire site has their actions publicly logged, not only bureacrats.
Your first question annoys me a bit. It shows you haven't been taking in half of what I've been saying above, so I'm just going to copypaste this time. All I'm doing at this stage is repeating myself.
"I believe, in the future, you could make a fine bureaucrat, but not now". No one here ever said, mentioned or implied that bureacrat rights should be limited to barely active users, because that's just silly. I wanted, and still would like to see Tyler as a bureacrat. That's the entire point of writing "not yet".
I don't think there's much point in my responding to your comment about me "bashing" administrators, or having a "complete misunderstanding about what bureacrat rights entail". I found the two of them a bit petty, and I don't have the time to get into useless attacks like that. I have an exactly 85% confidence level in our current set of active sysops, and I wouldn't have used the word idiots if I knew who you were referring to. That's about it, I have nothing more to add on this RfB. Ronan Talk 17:51, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Support - We definetely have way too few crats. Crats should be available every day for things that need to be done. I agree with others above saying we should stop making the crat rights super special. It is just another right, just like adminship. We are not limiting the amount of admins because they might not be able to judge that well on YG threads. I trust that Zammy will be able to judge RfAs well too, and I don't see any reasons why he would not be a good crat. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:45, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Weak Support - Per Joey, however, I still feel the 'crats that are still somewhat active are still doing their part, and I'm not sure whether or not we need one more, but of course, there might be the day when we need one more crat. I still trust that Zam will be able to use these tools to the extent of his skill and has nothing but benefit for the wiki. Only time will tell. Styg 17:12, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - In light of certain views that have been put forth thus far, I feel a need to add my two cents to the discussion.

To start off, the crux of the issue is perhaps that the community needs to definitively decide whether it needs/wants crats to be more active. It is a bit iffy for me to say that the previously-held consensus is that crats being too active is harmful to the Wiki, although it has been brought up in discussions past. On the other hand, it has been repeatedly brought up in this discussion that 'crats should be highly active, maintaining a constant presence in the Wiki in editing and in discussions. Although this is hardly the best medium to go about defining the role of the bureaucrat, it certainly is a starting point.

Why is a more active bureaucrat useful to the Wiki? (For the purpose of discussion, we'll take this to mean "more active than they currently are now") The handling of requests argument is moot, since they are almost always responded to within a day. (I've seen the mention of a request that took a week to go through, but take a gander through the history page of the Bureaucrat requests and you'll see that it's the first and only such incident since the page's creation.) Does it make bureaucrats seem more approachable? Perhaps it demystifies the perception of bureaucrats. In recent years, we have never had much of an issue with the perception of administrators amongst non-admins, even despite the huge difference in the tools that a typical sysop has access to compared to regular users. So why should there be any sort of blurred perception with regards to bureaucrats, whose main function and added capacity is merely to be able to determine consensus on RfAs? But again, does the Wiki gain if bureaucrats were to show their presence in the community more often? Perhaps it'd be nice on a personal level, but on a technical level, it makes no difference to the workings of the Wiki.

To the contrary, I have always subscribed to the belief that a bureaucrat who is overly involved in the daily affairs in the Wiki might become too emotionally invested in certain issues or towards/against other individuals, such that they may have difficulty maintaining any sort of neutrality when closing certain discussions. Complete neutrality is impossible, but a certain level of neutrality close to it is achievable, which beats a bureaucrat that is too heavily invested in every discussion that he becomes crippled and prevented from making decisions. Of course, an active bureaucrat should not be checking the Wiki only every once in a blue moon otherwise he/she might completely lose touch with the Wiki. While I can't testify for the other bureaucrats, I have been reading all the Yew Grove discussions every other day for the past few months, and if I were to see it as beneficial or necessary to post my thoughts, I would do so immediately (as I have now). Becoming a bureaucrat has not changed that. I believe that the other bureaucrats have likewise been keeping tabs on the Wiki, and are not as inactive as some users may think.

As for the ideal number of active bureaucrats that we have on the Wiki, at the moment, we have 3 active bureaucrats, a more-than-sufficient number for the role of the bureaucrat in the Wiki to be carried out effectively. Any more and "the rest become ineffective dead weight and may cause strife among the others through disagreement or wishing to be more active." The reason why we don't have an ideal number of sysops on the Wiki yet is because the role of the sysop is extremely diverse. We have sysops that work with FIMGs, to those that clear RfDs, anti-vandals, housekeepers (who keep the list of wanted pages and images under wraps), etc. Because of this, the work is never quite complete, and thus sysops are never made redundant in their role. Although in recent years, the number of tasks that needed to be done has decreased (I used to remember a backlog of RfDs for one.), as the Wiki continues expanding and with older users retiring, with luck, we will never reach a point where we've hit an ideal number of sysops and don't need anymore. This isn't the first time this question has been posed, and I doubt that it'll be the last.

Finally, the distinction between Checkusers and Bureaucrats. Understandably, Checkuser is a powerful tool and is not to be trifled with as there can be legal repercussions. But this does not mean that simply because a user is trusted with the Checkuser that he can be trusted as a bureaucrat. At the most fundamental level, the Checkuser (at the end of the day) is a technical tool. In the same way, we trust our sysops to block vandals as necessary, we trust those with the Checkuser tool to use it appropriately when the need arises. However, the main function of the bureaucrat is to weigh arguments and determine consensus. There is no such component in the Checkuser tool. Thus, while it is a valid argument to say that someone with the Checkuser tool can be trusted to be a bureaucrat because the possibility of abuse may be lower, it is not valid to say that simply because they have the Checkuser tool, they can be trusted to carry out the role of the bureaucrat effectively.

In conclusion, what I have said here should not be taken to be the opinion of any of the other bureaucrats, they may agree or disagree with it. Also, this is not an oppose to Zamorak as a bureaucrat, but is more for the clarity and facilitation of discussion by straightening out the standards we seem to be holding bureaucrats to. Cheers. C.ChiamTalk 10:09, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

The argument that more is better is a valid one. This wiki could be run with one bureaucrat, or one admin, or even one user. We all have lives, we all have different things to do than maintain this wiki - as such, we allow more than one of everything. There are many admins who work in one area - an example is countervandalism. By your logic, we should get rid of all but one, because vandals would still be blocked within a day. No, this is a wiki full of volunteers - if people want to volunteer to help speed things up, that should be welcomed and not tossed aside to maintain the precious "status quo".
On the topic of determining whether or not Zamorak would be a good bureaucrat, I am amazed by the lack of evidence provided by the opposers. Everyone seems to be making opinionated statements about what they think Zamorak is like, rather than backing up their statements with evidence. The candidate has closed multiple Yew Grove forums and at least one request for chatmod; if there really are concerns, there must be some evidence of him inappropriately closing forums/requests like that. I would argue that all of the opposer's comments are "moot" since they provide no actual evidence.
The CheckUser tool not only requires trust in terms of keeping confidential information confidential, it also requires good judgement in its use. I'm not actually saying that the roles are comparable; I'm saying that because he is trusted with CheckUser, he must be doing something right as an admin. And admins can already determine consensus on YG threads, CC threads and RfCMs. Again, I'd love to see some actual proof of why Zamorak can't be trusted with the 'crat bit.
I'd also say that, considering your statement about how bureaucrats shouldn't be active on the wiki to avoid being "biased", that you've dug yourself a nice grave here. Making a giant textwall about your perception of bureaucrats isn't the best way to stay neutral, and I'd actually ask that you never close any RfBs, since you obviously bring too many preconceptions of what a bureaucrat should be with you. ajr 16:42, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
The argument that "more is better" is only true to a certain extent. By my logic, I never stated that the ideal number of sysops/crats is 1, but yes, I agree with you that more can be better for the Wiki. More users/admins means that more content is created, more vandalism is stopped, and users can focus more on building up the Wiki. But the logic of my argument is that more will be better until you reach an ideal number, and past that point even more will either not be beneficial or will instead harm the Wiki.
For example, if there was a scenario where the RuneScape Wiki had a million editing users, would it be able to run properly? Probably not. You'd have plenty of content coming in, but as with all Wikis, disputes and quarrels will arise, and to seek input from the rest of the community for dispute resolution would be hell. Nothing would get done, which clichéd as it is, is really just an example of "Too many cooks spoil the broth". What then? Is 100,000 users still too much? 10,000? 1,000? Wikipedia has somewhere around 80,000+ active users, but then again, it's huge enough for someone to be editing in any part of the Wiki for years and not be noticed. This is just a bit of rhetoric and these numbers are unrealistic, but they serve to prove the point that a limit does exist, hence the ideal number of sysops/crats. If you want to make the argument that we need another bureaucrat so that users won't have to wait a few hours before they get granted their rollback/custodian rights, then so be it, but I disagree with the presumption that it'll definitely be nothing but good.
As for your last paragraph, if you have comments that you wish to direct to me alone, please post it on my talkpage instead. It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I have already replied to you on my talkpage. Cheers. C.ChiamTalk 18:50, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
If you must know, Adrian, I object to Ty's philosophy of "more is better." Ty's previous comments on various RfAs, his statements to me in private, and the response to my question at the top have led me to believe that Ty would be the type to follow the unrestrained "more is better" model, which I do not agree with. I prefer Caleb's logistical model rather than your exponential model. --LiquidTalk 18:55, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
Which comments on RfAs make you feel that he would be unable to set aside personal biases when closing a discussion? Do you have any proof of this in terms of previously closed YG/RfCMs? ajr 19:17, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Before you jump on me for thatedit conflict made that obsolete, let me give you a few examples. This and this are examples of where the bureaucrats had disagreements. The former wasn't overruled; the latter was. The better mechanism for RfA review is by the community, not by bureaucrats overruling each other, which is what will happen when we have too many bureaucrats. It's already happening now, and we're not even at four.
As for Ty in particular, if you want hard reasons on why I disagree with his RfA philosophy, fine. The only oppose that I could find from Ty on an RfA was this one, back in October 2010. Unfortunately, it seems to me like his philosophy has changed since then. In subsequent RfAs, he has only supported (or in one case neutral). Some of the reasons have been less than ideal. Do no evil?
Of course, the smattering of supports in itself is not an issue. What I do have an issue with is the overweight of supporting arguments. This has been the feeling that I have had in my private discussions with him, which, as the name suggests, will remain private. But, looking at his response to my question at the top of this page, Fergie's is the only RfA he had an issue with. Even Gareth recognized this as a shaky consensus at best, as have the other bureaucrats I've talked to. This is not intended to be a strike at the bureaucrats who did close the discussions, but I have an issue with Ty's lack of an issue with some of the previous closures. --LiquidTalk 19:30, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
As for the Yew Grove discussions, I trust his ability to close those, or I would not have nominated him for administrator... --LiquidTalk 19:30, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
Wait, so first you say that bureaucrats having disagreements is bad, but then you go on to say that the bureaucrat candidate not having issues with previous closures is bad? Or am I missing something? Suppa chuppa Talk 19:34, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm saying bureaucrats overruling each other is bad. A community forum is a better place to sort out these issues. The first part was directed at Adrian's statement that too many bureaucrats is not a bad thing. The second is directed at Ty's position in particular. --LiquidTalk 19:36, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. If there is a need for additional 'crats, there are a number of users I believe are more qualified at the moment. Magic-iconStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance 23:09, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - We need wise people. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 15:26, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comment- Can someone please explain to me what is so wrong with him saying that crats have the image of being illusive beasts? Matt (t) 21:42, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

It's "elusive" btw. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:43, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
It's the whole statement of bureaucrats being elusive beasts that only come out to play when lured with a jar of 'crat treats that is the issue. There is a distinction between a serious discussion (this) and a good time to joke and play (elsewhere). A bureaucrat needs to be able to recognize that fact. I'm also not particularly impressed by his edit summary for Ronan's question ([1]). The intentional misspelling of like has no place in a serious discussion such as this one. I'd really like something like what Dtm did on Skill's RfA (scroll down to the bottom) to never happen again. --LiquidTalk 17:04, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
I could have said "Our bureaucrats are never around," but that would not have the same effect of the statement that I did make. I answered the question in a serious manner. Even if I might intentionally misspell some words and use some foolish edit summaries, that does not mean that the words placed are any less serious. 22px-Logo.svg.png22#.png 17:41, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
The first part of what you said IS true. If you had said "Our bureaucrats are never around," then that would have given the impression of a serious, professional, qualified candidate. The statement that you did make gives a different impression, one of more or less a jokester. I don't think that's the impression you wanted to make.
As for the second part of what you said, unfortunately, that intentional misspelling in the edit summary detracted significantly from what you said. It made me feel like you are not taking this request seriously, and treating it more or less as a joke. --LiquidTalk 17:59, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
I don't see what he said being any more than a mere opinion and while it was not the most serious thing ever said, I don't see what is so absurd with what he said and how it possibly detracts from the nomination. I find you referring to his opinion as a joke and calling him a jokester uncalled for and somewhat rude. While a bureaucrat should of course be serious, I'm going to use a quote from Cook here,
I think it's fine if people aren't serious as long as they know when to stop
— Cook
I agree with Cook. I think Ty knows when to stop and that no proof has been given to the contrary. Matt (t) 01:34, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Cook too. I use the example of User:Rwojy as a good example of this. He is one of the biggest jokesters that I have known on my talk page, on the IRC, and (sometimes) in-game. But, on the Yew Grove, he has always been serious. I think this discussion merits more seriousness from the nominee than he has thus far exhibited.
I am not referring to his opinion as a joke; I am referring the treatment of this discussion as a joke. I am a bit miffed about you accusing me of rudeness when nothing of the sort was intended or (as far as I can tell) has transpired. As I was responding to a question (yours), I think it was called for. But, I don't want to get into a "who is rude" argument here, so I will cease to comment on this issue and I ask that you do the same. --LiquidTalk 02:11, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
Neutral - You would be a fine 'crat in my opinion, but I don't feel it is necessary at this time. The purpose of a 'crat is to oversee, and that's what the current ones do, and they are fine with this and their ability. I agree that perhaps more activity is a plus, but it's not a requirement for these tools. Your admin status serves you and your needs fine. 18:11, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Ever so slight support - Obviously given my RfB earlier in the year I do believe we need more active 'crats, and Zamorak is a fine guy for it - but I do have a small amount of the reservations that the opposers do (ignoring "we have enough" argument, of course). The positives do slightly outweigh the negatives for me, at least, but only enough to just push me off a neutral. Quest Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:22, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to make TyA a bureaucrat at this time. Dtm142 00:45, December 25, 2011 (UTC)