AVID:Requests for Permissions

Requests for Permissions

---

Welcome! If you are considering requesting to become either a moderator or an administrator, you must read the Note below. Please see the Instructions section for guidance on how to request.

Note to Requesters

It is best to learn the ins and outs of being part of site staff, as it will be a big responsibility. So before you continue, please read the entirety of the AVID:Site Staff page, and take note of what we expect from a staff member.

Moderatorship

The Moderator role allows users to help out the Admins and Bureaucrats by gaining slightly elevated powers to help keep the Wiki clean and free from vandals, without the power to enact major changes to the Wiki. It is also a first step and learning experience with the Wiki's staff team for users who wish to become Admin or Bureaucrat in the future.

What are the requirements?

• You must have at least 250 edits and they must be in good faith. (Edits prior to May 2020 on the former CLG Wiki website are counted towards this threshold)
  • In addition, these edits must not be filler/useless (i.e. overly minor changes to text that are not needed, continually editing your user page and not contributing to mainspace articles). Do not pad your edit count just to meet this criteria.
• You must not have been strongly warned within the last 3 months or tempblocked within the last 6 months.
• You should show a keen interest in the site and willingness to get involved with the community.
• You should show evidence of helping out the Admin team in the past. This includes reporting users and alerting Admins, but it does not require you to have done any rollbacks in the past.
  • Actions users have taken on the Wiki's official Discord server will also be taken into account when considering users for Moderator.

I have the commitment needed for Admin. Can I skip Moderator and jump straight to Admin?
Absolutely!

Adminship

Administrators work to maintain AVID and keep it running. Administrators have a lot of power, and thereby have significant responsibility. They should use their powers to combat vandalism/spam, and keep the wiki running in an orderly manner.

I know I can handle being an administrator. What are the requirements to becoming one?
While bureaucrats do have some flexibility in deciding who becomes an administrator, there are a set of base guidelines that they look for in reviewing requests:

• User must have registered their account 1 year ago. In addition, you must have at least 1,000 or more edits. (once again, edits from the former CLG Wiki are included)
• User should not currently be disruptive to the wiki, intentionally or not.
• User has not previously requested for adminship within the past 3 months.
• User has proven knowledge of AVID and its site rules. This means that they follow editing guidelines, they fix and improve pages, they upload high quality logos and follow copyright rules, etc.
• User is active in fighting vandalism, sockpuppetry, and policy-breakers. This means that their editing history provides evidence of assisting administrators (i.e. editing talk pages of admins to alert them of destructive users), reporting users, and undoing/rolling back poor or nonconstructive edits.

I satisfy (or mostly satisfy) all of the above requirements. What now?
Remember that when you become an administrator, you are expected to increase in activity and effectiveness. If you are granted adminship, you are expected to edit often and use your powers responsibly. You are expected to continue doing all of the above and more. This includes approving and/or rejecting edits on the moderation queue, responding to user reports, responding to messages or questions on your talk page, monitoring the recent changes, participating in wiki discussions, maintaining the front/AVID/MediaWiki pages, and constructively utilizing administrator abilities. If your request is approved and you are caught abusing your powers, bureaucrats reserve the right to remove your rights and punish you accordingly.

I am prepared to do everything you just listed and more.
If you truly believe you are a fit to become an administrator, then we wish you luck! Be aware of how the requesting process works. This is a voting process. All users are permitted to vote, whether or not they are an administrator. They will either support, oppose, or comment. After a request is published, AVID editors have a maximum of one month to vote, although closure can occur earlier at the original author's request or if consensus one way or the other is overwhelming (SNOW). After one month is up, should none of the early closure exceptions apply, a bureaucrat will review the votes and make a decision. If more than one month has passed and a bureaucrat has not responded to a request, feel free to notify a bureaucrat on their talk page or via Discord. You are not permitted whatsoever to edit in the support or oppose sections after the maximum voting period has passed. You may add or reply to comments, but you may not modify or remove others' comments. If you are caught trying to influence editors to vote or change their vote, your request will be disqualified. Cheating, incivility, and harassment is prohibited. The Instructions section below will guide you on how to publish a request.

Bureaucracy

If you are an administrator who would like bureaucracy, contact a bureaucrat on their talk page or Discord.

Instructions for Requesting

Please ensure you have read the above section. Anyone requesting must have a valid reason to why they should be promoted, and understand how to use the abilities. Use the code below to request. Fill in each parameter with what is specified (except the "Request" and "~~~~" part, leave that alone). Remember that these abilities are not given out freely or carelessly, and that they are not for fun. If your request is ignored or rejected, do not feel bad. Take the voters' advice and begin to work harder so you can request again in the future.

Code for Requesters:

{{Request|Username|Reason as to why you should be a moderator/administrator|~~~~}} ===Support=== ===Oppose=== ===Comments=== Example When typing: {{Request|User|Because...|~~~~}} ====Support==== ====Oppose==== ====Comments====

The following would appear:

Instructions for Voting

All users are able to vote, but may only vote once per request. Please note that if a request has already been approved/rejected by a bureaucrat, you are no longer able to vote. In the Support section, users should sign if they think that the user has earned the abilities. In the Oppose section, users should sign if they disagree with the user being promoted. In the Comments section, users may add their opinion or questions as to why or why not the user should/nt be promoted.

Users vote using either of the following templates:
{{Support}} You make a good fit. ~~~~
Support You make a good fit. [signature]

{{Oppose}} You make a bad fit. ~~~~
Oppose You make a bad fit. [signature]

Requests

So do you think you are fit for the staff team? If so, then go ahead and make a request in any of the three sections below.

Adminship

User:LoganStuff

talk · contribs · editcount · logs · block log · rights log

A very good admin on the Discord server. A wiki veteran hailing from the WikiFoundry era. IMO they're often are the voice of reason within staff, which is why they're considered a head admin on the server. Also very good contributions to the site and is quite knowledgeable on British media as well as technology. Like with VPJ, I believe they would make a good admin on the site. Logoarto (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I've seen you too along with VPJHuk. Having someone who's been around since the old days is great and I think you're qualified. - GutterBoy8001
2. Support I think Logan will make a perfect fit for admin on the wiki. They have my vote! 19:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Support Logan really knows their Stuff. They're one of the most valuable users on this wiki, making quality edits and additions to the site, and seeing they are being considered for admin on wiki, whilst already having a tremendous track record as head admin in the Discord, really shows the weight of their contributions in the community. Compooper (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Support I believe Logan would make a great admin as well. · Talk · Edits 20:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
5. Support Number one ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ 20:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
6. Support (TALK•CONTRIBUTIONS) 23:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

User:VPJHuk

talk · contribs · editcount · logs · block log · rights log

Has proven to be a good administrator on the Discord server. A wiki veteran hailing from the WikiFoundry era. Notifies staff about any ruckus going on, very good contributions to the site and very knowledgeable on rare logos. Is often the "mediator" when drama happens on the server. Therefore, I believe he would make a good fit as admin for this wiki. Logoarto (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I've seen you around for a while, and that's a good sign, that someone is dedicated to help the logo community with captures and edits. You have my vote! -GutterBoy8001
2. Support VPJHuk has really been a great admin and contributor to the logo community. He's been doing a great job and I believe he deserves to be admin on the wiki.
3. Support VPJ's knowledge success in the logo hunting field is a valuable asset in the community, as well as bringing quality wiki contributions. This is another user I'm happy to see being nominated for wiki admin. Compooper (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Support VPJ is another great asset to our site. · Talk · Edits 20:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
5. Support Number twoooo ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ 20:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
6. Support You are great (TALK•CONTRIBUTIONS) 23:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

The following discussion is closed.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing as  failed Logoarto (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

---

User:Logofan

talk · contribs · editcount · logs · block log · rights log

My edits are in good faith. I have not been requested for adminship within three months.

Abstain

1.  Abstain I have upgraded my vote after looking at your edit history. You do indeed have many, many, many good faith edits, and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because your experience is unlike most people who make proposals like this. However, your reasoning still needs improvement. It still does not change the fact, that you have not explained much on why you really want to become administrator. But I'm willing to give you a very fair chance. Perhaps you can wait a bit, then, when the time is right, try out a Moderator request? Your edits do improve the scope of the wiki more often than not (your warning about forgetting the credits is a very minor thing compared to everything else), and I think it's only fair for me to acknowledge that fact out loud. Good work, keep it up. Compooper (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The last sentence alone speaks to me one theory: that you waited out those "three months" or whatever just for the sake of waiting those three months. I do not see much indication or explanation that you are ready to become an administrator just yet, because your proposal in writing doesn't show much of anything at all. I suggest you take some time on making yourself more known among the community as a good faith editor, rather than just saying it and hoping staff will fall for it. You all know the phrase well: "actions speak louder than words." It goes without saying that we would like to see more action from you before considering you as an administrator. Compooper (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose While you have made helpful edits since joining, your reasoning doesn't really tell us why you think you should become an administrator. With requesting staff roles, you can't just simply say something like "I make good-faith edits" and expect support for your request off the bat. As Compooper said, you need to build up a track record of actions that'll support your case and show others you can stay committed to them, and you should also go more in-depth with your reasoning on why you should become an administrator. As suggested above, I'd recommend waiting and helping out more in ways like fixing misuses of sections, reporting users violating the rules, etc. before making another RfP. StarlightFantasy (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose While you have greatly contributed to the wiki in terms of its content (and much thanks to you for that), you have not elaborated on anything else, like your other forms of contributions, and your behavior within the wiki and its community that could further justify your administratorship. For a position like an administrator, you need to do more than what you're doing, and you have to prove it to us. I advise you contribute to the community side of the wiki, like reporting users, discussing with them on ideas and issues, making and voting on proposals, etc. And once you think you've done enough, you may reconsider running for a position like an administrator again. For now, though, I'll have to oppose your candidacy. Don't think of this as rejection, however. Think of it as pointing out your flaws and what you can do to improve on them. Indeed, you show great potential, as your contributions and your dedication to your faithful acts are already promising signs. You just have a lot of room for improvement and expansion. I'm sure you can do it. :) Doctorine Dark (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per others, but you putting in good edits and no real log of you getting into any mischief here is a very good start! (• USER TALK! •) 22:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose Self-explanatory. But you have a chance to be a good mod someday as others say. :) Tortuga Tonta Prods. (AKA Mr. Vadimon) (Formerly TPatKB) (this is my, yes, MY talk page) 23:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
6. Oppose While yes, your edits are in good faith, please work on your reasoning. Kbcars123456 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.