Xeno Series Wiki:Requests for bureaucratship

From Xeno Series Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wiki icon - Policy.svg This is a policy, a standard that all users should be aware of and follow.
Do not edit this page unless you have consensus about it on the talk page.

This page details the process for requesting bureaucratship on Xeno Series Wiki.


Prospective b'crats should follow the following:

  1. Copy and paste the following block of text into the "current requests" section.
  2. Replace Username with your username.
    • If this is not your first request for bureaucratship, add a " (2)" on the end. Or a " (3)", or whatever number is appropriate. (Maybe reconsider if you have that many failed requests though...)
  3. Save the page. This creates a redlink to a subpage of this page with your username as the subtitle.
  4. Go to the redlink and paste the following block of text into it:
  5. Replace Username with your username.
  6. Replace Comment with your case as to why you should be granted bureaucratship. It is recommended that you link to your successful RFA in order to avoid repeating yourself too much. Don't forget to sign it at the end with ~~~~. (If you're curious, you can see this template at Template:RFB.)
  7. Save the new page.

At this point, the community is invited to express their opinion. Any user may place a vote in the "support", "oppose", or "neutral" sections of the RFB, ideally explaining why they agree or disagree with appointing the candidate as a bureaucrat. Users can change their votes, but only by crossing out the old one instead of deleting it. Once it appears that all who wish to participate have done so, the existing bureaucrats review the arguments and make a decision: either the candidate is granted bureaucratship, or they are declined it. The RFB is archived with a note of its result.


  • Only self-nominations are allowed.
  • Only existing administrators may apply, and they must have been administrators for three months.
  • Applying incorrectly will likely result in its cancellation. You may try again if you do it right this time, but the fact that you did it wrong the first time will count against you, as it demonstrates a certain degree of carelessness that is not becoming of a staff candidate.
  • While votes are used to aggregate community opinion, the final decision is not a matter of vote count. The userbase guides the decision, it does not make it.
  • Having a previous failed RFB or having been previously demoted do not automatically disqualify a candidate. However, the user will have to show that they have learned from these failures and will not repeat them, if they do not wish for their RFB to be laughed off.


For the candidate[edit]

Much like RFAs, do not explain in your request why you want to be an b'crat. Instead, explain why the wiki should want you to be a b'crat. What can you do better than the existing staff? In what tangible ways will the wiki improve if you have the tools? Show us examples of you putting time and effort into your supports and opposes of admin candidates, to demonstrate that you have experience with the sorts of things that a b'crat is expected to do well.

For the commenters[edit]

Give good reasons to support or oppose the candidate. This isn't a vote count, so if all you're doing is rubber-stamping a section with your signature, you're simply wasting time (yours and others'). Instead, go into detail as to why you believe the candidate should or should not be promoted.

Example 1
#'''Oppose.''' ~~~~
This is meaningless; this contributes no information that would help the staff make a decision on the RFA.
Example 2
#'''Oppose.''' I don't like how Username seems to always vote against consensus. ~~~~
This is significantly better, mentioning something specific for staff to look into.
Example 3
#'''Oppose.''' During [[this RFA]], Username brought up a lot of points that everyone else thought were very weak. This isn't new, he also did similar [[here]], [[here]], and [[also here]]. I think having bureaucratship will just make this worse. ~~~~
Providing specific examples of good or bad behaviour not only gives staff concrete things to base their decision on, and also gives the candidate a chance to respond to them specifically.

Current requests[edit]