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


In my time on the wiki, I have seen a relatively low amount of bureaucrats manage a relatively small workload between them. However, at time of writing, there is one active bureaucrat with two more watching without editing if Special:ListUsers is to be believed. I think it is time the wiki had a bureaucrat that is more involved in the community. Without involvement, I think it becomes harder to understand what the community requires from a bureaucrat/sysop and how best to react to issues when they arise.

I, Cqm, 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, cqm 01:53, 29 Oct 2014 (UTC).

Questions for the nominee

1. What bureaucrat work do you intend to take part in?
Given the relatively small amount of bureaucrat work that exists, I intend to participate in all aspects of it where possible. RS:AWBR and RS:RFA have long been on my watchlist, which notifies me via emails when new requests occur, and I check RS:AD at least once a day if not more. Through these measures, I believe I am fully capable of fulfilling requests that may arise.

2. What have been your most helpful contributions to the RuneScape Wiki, and why?
My involvement in the wiki was originally lore based, starting with the lores project which has since become more or less obsolete. Whilst I laid much of the foundation of dialogue pages and book transcripts, the process has since become almost automatic with such things being added as new items and NPCs are released. Whilst I don't really participate in it anymore, I'm amazed to see how far the wiki has come with these.

Since becoming an administrator, I have moved away from content editing and focused more on the technical aspects of the wiki. Whilst there isn't much to do in way of feature improvements, I've spent vast amounts of time cleaning up js and css pages. I've also moved Navboxes to Lua and intend to do the same with Exchange data in the near future and eventually Infoboxes.

I've also taken steps to organise things as much as I can, in an effort to make things easier for the next generation of admins to manage. This is largely because I found much of the code that existed when I became an admin outdated, obsolete and rarely documented. I'd like to be able to get things to a point where they can stay unmaintained for many years to come or at the very least substantially easier than it is now.

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 haven't been in any conflicts that I remember, although that is possibly a reflection on what I focus on as an admin; I'm not the most active anti-vandal and I rarely find myself in anything resembling a content dispute, preferring to make small improvements to pages when reading through them for information. I wouldn't say I've ever been stressed by events on the wiki, but I have found the threads regarding user conduct difficult to close at times. When faced with anything like that I try to read through each viewpoint carefully to make sure I am acting in the interests of the community before making a closing statement.

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)

  • Is it true you're the person preparing the technical side needed for the implementation of the new wiki mainpage? It was supposed to complement the recent theme change. The decision forum has been closed three months ago. What happened to that project? 5-x Talk 23:55, November 6, 2014 (UTC)
    • Whilst I feel this is slightly outside the scope of this request and that you've kind of missed that the new theme was actually proposed by Iiii I I I, who I feel should be the one to implement it, I guess this does warrant some explanation. However, it's a question at the end of the day Big smile
      • The mainpage proposed used images with text embedded into the image. However, when you need to update the image as it's become outdated, it becomes a pain as you need to redo the text as well. It's possible these could be more of a pain to get updated than FIMGs, so I wanted to do it with CSS and utilise a template to make life easier in the long run (I have a mock up somewhere for it).
      • The initial proposal also used a font I didn't have access to as I'd have to pay for it either directly, or indirectly through purchasing photoshop/whatever adobe software it was created with. I object to having to fork out for that myself, let alone other users having to if they wanted to use the same font. This problem was exacerbated by the font being used by a logo that had competitors proposed in the same forum. It became difficult to work on when I didn't know which font would ultimately be used for the logo and thus the new mainpage tiles. The font we've finally settled on was actually decided just over a month ago.
      • In the two months or so we took to decide on the font to use, I've been working on other projects, such as the conversion of exchange data to lua mentioned above. All the projects take time and unfortunately mine, much like everyone else's, is limited. Whilst I work on one thing, others tend to get pushed down my todo list (the majority of which I keep in my head) and most of the things I'd like to do on the wiki take time to work out, test and eventually implement. If someone would like to take up the mainpage rework I'd be happy to give some pointers and help, but unfortunately no one else seems to have shown much interest. cqm 00:23, 7 Nov 2014 (UTC)
        • Seems to me this is actually in scope of this request. My questions have been answered. Thank you. 5-x Talk 11:08, November 7, 2014 (UTC)
          • I disagree. A bureaucrat's main role is closing RfA's, thus I would expect people to be looking at my conduct in discussions, particularly discussions where I have expressed my support or opposition and subsequently closed them. Other qualities that I might expect in a bureaucrat can be found in User:Azaz129/A note about Bureaucrats or Forum:Bureaucrat discussion. There's very little precedent on what questions should go here, many previous RfBs predate this section, but asking about why a a technical project has been stalled is more suited to a talk page or RS:AR than here. cqm 12:24, 7 Nov 2014 (UTC)
  • Are there any past bureaucrat actions that you disagree with or would have handled differently? Mainly with regard to RfA closings, but also any comments on related threads/requests. ʞooɔ 11:29, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
    • RfA closures are a little difficult to comment on given how many of them there have been in recent months. Given how the community responds to incorrect discussion closure, I can't say I really disagree with any of them. Actions outside of RfA actions are similarly lacking and again I can't say I disagree with any. cqm 00:37, 10 Nov 2014 (UTC)
  • What is your attitude on the topics of Forum:Bureaucrat discussion? Particularly the first one, "Bureaucrats distancing themselves from affairs of their community in order to remain impartial." Also, what role (if any) do (or should) bureaucrats play beyond the functional assigning of rights? ʞooɔ 11:29, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd disagree bureaucrats are required to be distant from the community, it's certainly not something I've seen to be a factor in discussion. Dtm has long been in Special:Chat and Sacre was normally in IRC (while he was still around) yet I wouldn't say either have had their neutrality compromised from community interaction. Sysops manage to remain neutral when closing discussions, despite their higher involvement, I don't see why bureaucrats would suddenly find themselves bias with an extra user right. cqm 00:37, 10 Nov 2014 (UTC)
  • Why do you think it has been a year and a half since we've had a successful RfA, or even one that ran for two weeks? ʞooɔ 11:29, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
    • Lack of RfA nominations is a bit of a complex issue and could have any number of causes. However, given the generally low participation in discussions of late, I'd suggest there's a lack of new editors joining the community thus giving fewer potential RfA candidates. As for why RfAs are often finishing early, RfA is a daunting process. You're offering yourself up for approval to the community and when things start going wrong then it can be disheartening. cqm 00:37, 10 Nov 2014 (UTC)
  • What do you think of the current state of the wiki? How has it changed since you've joined? Are we in a good position for the future? ʞooɔ 11:29, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
    • RecentChanges seems slower than I recall when I joined the wiki. This is potentially a reflection of there being less work to do on the wiki but also a lower rate of new editors. Despite this, threads on reddit suggest the wiki is consistently the most popular fansite and as long as content is being added the wiki should remain ahead of the game. The wiki also manages to produce information way ahead of competing fansites so I can't see the wiki becoming obsolete in the foreseeable future. cqm 00:37, 10 Nov 2014 (UTC)
  • What is your philosophy on consensus and discussion closure? Is a bureaucrat's job to exactly implement the will of the community, or should he do what he thinks is best for the community? An example of the latter would perhaps be here, where Caleb did some investigation of his own and closed it as he did partially due to his own intervention. Additionally, is it a bureaucrat's job to mark certain arguments as irrelevant even if nobody else has challenged them during the course of the RfA? ʞooɔ 11:29, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
    • Unchallenged irrelevant arguments are fortunately rare and fortunately don't really exist in modern RfAs. However, this is technically part of finding consensus so I see no reason that we can't call said arguments out as part of the closure. I would always try to do what is best for the community although I recognise on occasion this may be at odds with what the community has appeared to decide. Ultimately, each situation is going to be different to some degree so I would prefer to handle each separately rather then sticking to a single rule. cqm 00:37, 10 Nov 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the most controversial thing that has happened on the wiki since you joined, and do you think it was handled correctly? ʞooɔ 11:29, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
    • I would measure controversy in terms of community backlash and thus would deem Ansela's desysop thread as the most controversial by far. I'm not going to comment on the reasons why it caused such a backlash, but I don't think Andorin's resignation was necessary in the long term. He reopened the thread acknowledging his mistake, which I can't fault, which I feel was the right course of action given the circumstances. cqm 00:37, 10 Nov 2014 (UTC)
  • How would you close your RfB as it currently stands? ʞooɔ 11:29, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
    • As it stands, I would discount the neutrals and TyA's oppose due to a general lack of reasoning in both. However, the reasoning behind some supports isn't something I think is wholly relevant to a RfB although it does demonstrate a high level of trust which is what I would expect every bureaucrat to have. I'd like a little more discussion overall, but I'd likely close this as successful. cqm 00:37, 10 Nov 2014 (UTC)


Support being a bureaucrat isn't much of a big deal, and there seem to be very few currently active. I'm sure Cqm could do the job well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:57, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

NeutrålMolMan 02:06, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

Are you actually neutral or did you just want do make that joke? Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 08:27, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
Both. I wasn't going to mention my stance at all, but I couldn't resist. I didn't elaborate my neutrål stance because I want it to remain meaningless. I'll not attempt to influence this RfB. MolMan 12:20, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

Support - In my experience Cam is level-headed, mature, and knows all the ins and outs of the wiki. Pretty much exactly what I expect from a bureaucrat, so that's convenient. I fully trust Cam to make wise decisions, even in tough situations (like he mentioned). Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 08:30, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Cqm is a very trustworthy user in my opinion. He knows what he's about and is pretty much an expert on everything RSWiki. Since there is currently a severe shortage of bureaucrats and since Cqm knows his stuff I'm sure he'll make a great one. Fallen leaves ThePsionic Eek 11:11, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral - You meet the expected requirements, but I haven't seen an issue with Dtm's bureaucrat reliability so I don't think it's that all necessary. Ozank Cx 11:28, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree, Dtm is easily reachable and does a great job of being a bureaucrat. However, he is just one guy and it's easy to overlook things as he did here. An extra pair of hands wouldn't hurt and if he does leave/become inactive we'd in a position where there's readily available alternative (assuming this is successful). cqm 12:18, 29 Oct 2014 (UTC)

Neutral - Although I'm sure Cåm is trustworthy enough for the position, I'm not particularly for this, but I'm also not against this. -- Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 16:19, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

No reasoning? There's not much point in that. Ronan Talk 18:43, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

Slight Oppose - I'm kinda with Spine on this one. Cam really is a good editor, however I don't feel strongly for him as a 'crat. 22px-Logo.svg.png22#.png 19:31, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

Could you elaborate more? Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 20:24, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Cam is a hard worker and is very level-headed about just about anything. He has a respectable view, which means I can take a good level of trust with him being an bureaucrat and making decisions on difficult threads, such as other RfAs or threads about UTP violations, such as what happened recently with Ansela. He shows that he takes things very seriously and I would have to agree with the low bureaucratic activity, even with Dtm here every so often. Having an extra pair of hands, especially ones that are experienced in just about every field on the wiki and more, along with being fair and knowing where to draw the line, would be an excellent addition to this wiki. I don't have any issues with cam becoming an bureaucrat, nor do I see any problems with responsibilities. Honour Coelacanth0794 Talk Square sandwich 20:39, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Let me start by saying I don't think the argument "there's already an active 'crat" is a good one at all. We've almost always had 2 (semi-)active crats at a time, which was to make sure that if one could not be contacted for whatever reason, the other could (with a jar of bearcat cookies at full moon, of course). Furthermore, even though I never ever expect a similar situation to arise again, it has proven to be useful to have 2 active crats at the same time. And even if it wouldn't be for overruling each others decisions, it could be useful if the 'crats could discuss this with each other if they're not entirely sure what to do with an RfA.

I do think Cam is very good at putting the community first when it comes to this wiki. I fully trust him to make the right decisions on RfAs, and of course bot requests. I do think he is the best candidate for RfB out of the currently active admins. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:47, November 1, 2014 (UTC)

I require two jars or bearcat cookies btw, the full moon is optional Wink cqm 18:51, 1 Nov 2014 (UTC)

Closed - Cqm will be made a bureaucrat. Dtm142 (talk) 04:58, November 12, 2014 (UTC)