Brickipedia User Rights Requests

== Chat Mod ==
=== First, unsuccessful (14/01/2012) ===
Im allways on chat im a trusted friendly user and i will only ban after giving two warnings so i think i would be a good chat moderator.
====Support====
* Strongly support - Clone is/was a good chat mod and deserves to be again. --From the desk of Br1ck an1mator 10:36, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
* Support well if hes going to get to admin he at least needs to be a chat mod Prisinorzero 10:54, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
*Support- he edits a lot and helps the wiki. 
**How has that got to do with Chat mod? He also may have been the reason it was closed. Request to strike that vote. -- 05:23, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
====Neutral====
* Not yet. - CJC 14:03, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
*Per CJC -- 00:45, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
* He was one already --RaceLord 07:48, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
**No. He was stripped his power due to it being reopened. Many users did not get back their chatmod rights. -- 07:58, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
***ya but i think know poeple should be Chat Mods --RaceLord 08:10, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
* User can be very mature at *some* times, but may sometimes stray to a "less-mature" state. Maybe mature a little more, and we can see what we can do. :) 05:27, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
====Oppose====
*Strong oppose he is sometimes mean. 13:30, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
*Oppose a very short fuse sometimes on chat. Also not a good idea considering all the drama at the LMBW. -King of Nynrah Talk 13:34, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
*Oppose Sorry, I like CGCJ, but I don't really trust him as a chat mod now. Especially considering how he was acting towards newbies up until recently and the chat rules at The Brickipedia Project Wiki. 13:54, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
**I never made those chat rules Ba and Zero did.
***I didn't say you wrote them, I just said because of those rules. Anyway, then that would be a reason for me to oppose those twos' RfCM. 20:27, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
*Strong oppose I like him, but I after everything that's happened recently, I'm no longer willing to trust him with rights. 
*Oppose (this is an oppose section- do we really need to all say oppose?). I don't know if I agree with "trusted" or "friendly" anymore, I really don't know what happened. Anyway, apparently insulting people on chat already. I don't know if this is true or not, but in the past, there seemed to be accusations like this constantly surrounding this user. 23:55, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
* User has never been 100% trustable -- 02:03, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
*Oppose I have to agree with you all. Sorry CGCJ, you're just hard to trust. 
*Oppose - Sorry, we can't trust you with the privileges in light of some recent incidents. FB100Z • talk • contribs 02:12, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
* Strong Oppose No offense, CGCJ, but I think that you're a big reason why chat was closed. No offense, though. :) Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs)
**Exactly. -- 05:22, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
====Comments====
*This is going to close soon. Can we make it quicker for CGCJ's sake? -- 07:17, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
** I agree Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs)
----
=== Second, successful (10/04/2012) ===
I think he'd be good and, this is a restart I removed opposes and supports. Please ad your opinion. 
====Support====
* "7 Steps to World Domination" by Br1ck Animat0r. --From the desk of Br1ck an1mator 16:13, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
*<S>I actually think CGCJ has been good on chat. -- 08:49, April 9, 2012 (UTC)</S>
*Seems more sensible than a couple of other users with chatmod rights 08:56, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
*I trust him myself. He IS a good user, and very much mature. What happend on LMBW doesn't matter now. -- 08:57, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
::User has been rude to other users on chat, and has been disobeying some rules. -- 06:18, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
*Yes. He should be a Chat Moderator. -Lego Whovian 09:02, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
* yo can just look at his edits to see how vital he is to the wiki, he is experienced and is on chat often so why not --Brick bobby - It's a trap! 10:28, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
*Yeah, he'd be a fine Chat mod. -
* He has matured on chat or more over I'VE matured on chat so he won't have to abuse his powers to unban me :P Prisinorzero 10:44, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
*Cgcj has been more than good on chat. He has matured and I think he would use his (might be) powers well. He is nice and helpful. I think he should be a mod for these reasons and the ones above! He has alot of edits to and has been on this wiki for a long time... --
* --
* He is always on the chat, and he treats people well these days. --LEGOSpinjitzu 15:14, April 9, 2012 (UTC)LEGOSpinjitzu
*Weak support He is ok. 15:17, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
*Support - This guy is changing, and for the better. Just try not to screw things up. ;) 19:07, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
**I will try my best not to screw up.
*In my opinion, CGCJ has been humbled, and has matured a lot as a result. I've had several times where CGCJ's been bullied on chat but unable to sort it out by himself. Poor lad. Anyhow, I'd trust him with these rights now. - 19:22, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
*12 support :D 
* Make that 13! He has been great ever since... whenever I started. Strong support! Creeper S
**So that would mean ive been great since August 13, 2011 thanks :) 
* Per NHL. 09:57, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
*I have 3 reason why he should be a chatmod, 1. Always on Chat, 2. Trusted User, 3. Very mature, 
Bob bricks • Talk • Blog 
====Neutral====
* Neutral - This is a bit...difficult. FB100Z • talk • contribs 04:26, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
* Per FB. ~ CJC 21:13, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
====Oppose====
*While CGCJ has matured some, I still do not think I can trust him as a ChatMod. The system is much better now, and I know that if he misuses the rights, that they'll be removed much quicker. However, before, when he had them, he banned nearly anyone from the LMB Wiki, or any newbie that he didn't like. I don't think he'd do that again, but it was so bad that I don't think I could do anything but oppose this request. I hate to bring this up again, but he also participated in the vandalism on the LMBW. I wouldn't bring it up at all, except that I think it took him months to get to the point where he could be trusted to not do it again. I won't be upset if he does get the rights, being that they'll be removed if he misuses them. But, I still must oppose because of the above reasons. 
** Well i would rather forget the vandalism of the lego message board wiki 
***Yes, I know, that's why I hated to bring it up, but I do believe it was only about 2 months ago where I felt like I could trust you to not do it again. :( 
* Not sure yet as he would more than likely misuse the rights, he seems mature but he goes off on newbies a lot and so fourth so yeah. Not that he is a bad user(he is great) but when it comes to chat no.-
* Per Drew. 
*4 oppose 
* If this passes, chat will be a disaster. No offense, but he is humorless and rather anti-social. 13:13, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
**So if this passes and i become a mod chat will be a disaster because im humorless, yes i agree that im humorless but i do have humour :P 
***There is a differance between awesomeness and humorlessness. He is awesome.
*Oh, god help us--Ninjago9 22:41, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
*Were we not just having a fourm of why he should be blocked?--WCDDoherty 22:45, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
**No we weren't, but we also had on for chzech and he's becoming an admin?
*No. Banned for a week last month for swearing and trolling. Doesn't need these rights. 23:30, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
* I've lost faith in CGCJ, He's got some things against users on other wikis, and some on here. -- 06:18, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
** I have nothing against users here its just the users at the LMBW.
***You still have things against users. My vote will not change. -- 06:28, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
**** Fair enough.
* Per Czech and SSX. -- 04:48, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
* I oppose because he's rude. In the chat room, he said some dirty stuff to me and some of the other people in there, and he just doesn't seem mature enough to be nominated. KatenVaughn 20:12, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
**Id like to know how im rude and what dirty stuff did i tell you?!?! 
====Comments====
*Can we have this closed and archived now?
** This request was never filled out properly, and never appeared in BP:URR due to the cat not being added... should it be closed, or restart it since it never showed up in the requests page? :S 08:04, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
*** Could restart it but only to see it fail again, oh well i say we should restart it.
**** It shall be fun to see it fail again.
***** Agreed. 23:32, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
****** That comment really wasn't needed. ~ CJC 09:36, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
* I removed supports/oppoes to start it off again. -- 08:51, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
** It should have technically closed in February anyway, so I think that should be enough time "between requests" 08:56, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
*Request for early closure. Clear consensus to make chatmod. -- 01:07, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
*Request for closure FB100Z • talk • contribs 04:40, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
** "Voting will last for a period of two weeks."
*** ^ Do I need to make this into a template or something? 05:29, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
****NHL, if my eyes ever go blind, I am suing you 50000000000000000 euro. :3 (And I want it paid through Pay Pal.) 05:30, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
*****I thought chatmod requests went for 1 week :S -- 05:51, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
****** So do I now you mention it.... 05:59, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
******* Well the nom has been open scince Febuary :p --Brick bobby - we need a CJC signal 07:20, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
******** Science xD 
*********Om nom nomination - 22:44, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
*Request for closure; clear consensus that i shall be getting the rights 
** "Voting will last for a period of two weeks."
*** Do we need a template ^^
****So when shall this be ending?
*****23rd. -- 11:22, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
******But it says 1 week in the comments?
*******Please can it end, this is just getting severally dragged out, two weeks is way to long. Prisinorzero 19:51, April 17, 2012 (UTC) 
**Do we have to go through this whole process if there's a pretty clear consensus? FB100Z • talk • contribs 19:18, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
**Not sure, well, I'm kinda new but, say someone had 20 supports and 4 opposes, that's pretty favourable. -- 04:49, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
* I don't know much about chatmod requests, so if an admin wants to overturn this, it's fine, but I am giving CGCJ the rights, because I don thing the support argument is stronger, (and I am in pain reading this comments section). 
== Administrator ==
=== First, unsuccessful (10/17/2011) ===
Detailed explanation of why you are nominating this user/yourself for adminship.
====Support====
*He's been on for a year now and has made more edits than most of the admins, yet he's not even a chat mod. I think he's seriously unappreciated with only 4 barnstars (three of them given to him this month by people shocked that he doesn't have any) created too many articles to count, a valid user to the wiki and a great person which any one on chat will agree and I'll support him till the very end CGCJ FOR ADMIN!!!!!! Prisinorzero (* ) Talk 18:43, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
* Go for it! Go Go Go! TreeSound, Master of Hearing 18:45, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
* He has experience, and I think he would have the control and discipline to use these tools right. A great friend, he'd make a good administrator in my mind. Just keep calm on chat. :P - 18:46, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
* he is a very hard-worker, and is dedicated to this wiki. go cgcj! 18:50, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
* Even though he is under-appreciated, this guy is a hared-working, fun-loving user who truley deserves adminship. TheDouter 15:00, October 17, 2011
* He edits daily, he is also getting final 2012 set pictures. --The question is:is or is not. 21:05, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
* Makes 3 edits a day or more yes! :Bob bricks Talk 
: And? Some people make 60+. o_O -- 03:55, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
====Neutral====
*If he calms down and works on his spelling, then yes. - 19:27, October 17, 2011 (UTC) (Changed vote to Oppose)
* I agree with KoN. Agent Swipe(talk) (Changed vote to Oppose)
* Per the others, not a bad user by any means, but spelling is definitely a problem... 
* 
* Eh - This is a tricky one... FB100Z • talk • contribs 05:56, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
====Oppose====
*He got some problems.... --Naruto Uzumaki + Aang Barrage 19:39, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
*:....says you... - Kingcjc 19:42, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
* Concerns with maturity, ability to interact well with other users and misuse of chat moderator rights which were removed from his account. 22:13, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
* Per Ajr, sorry 23:22, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
* Per Ajr and NHL. Pluss. He gets banned alot from chat. Not good dog.+On hi many wikis, He dosn't trust anyone else to help him. --Da Penguin with da Epic Skillz! Crazed Penguin talk 23:23, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
* Per Ajr, NHL, and CP. 23:45, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
* Edging towards this for now, per a few points mentioned. - Kingcjc 18:52, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
* Per Ajr, NHL, CP and Jag. - 19:04, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
* Oppose Per others --Berrybrick | 19:07, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
* 23:15, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
* Agent Swipe(talk)
* Per Ajr and NHL. Sorry, but there is still room for more work yet. 20:53, October 19, 2011 (UTC)
* Per..everyone...sorry.
--CollectableMinifig4Scientist 21:10, October 19, 2011 (UTC)
* Character and maturity concerns. BF2 Talk 12:39, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
====Comments====
*He's accepted the nomination, per chat. If anyone would like him to verify, then just comment. - 18:47, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
**And I've verified it. I saw it... 18:58, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
*CGCJ FOR ADMIN (vote or die)
**Just a note, he doesn't have rollback. 18:57, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
***then give it to him! 18:59, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
****Hmm...I WANT to vote for him, but I'm not entirely sure if I should..afterall..he knows my secret. He'd prebably ban me right away.
--CollectableMinifig4Scientist 19:28, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
*****Did you just admit to being underage? 
* Um..mh..hm..I'll get back to you on this. - Kingcjc 19:31, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
*Where's the detailed description of why he should be admin? --Berrybrick | 19:37, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
**Oh, now I see, he's underappreciated and has a lot of edits, not a good enough argument for me. --Berrybrick | 19:39, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
***Yea, adminship is not a reward for good work... 20:34, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
* Has the user even accepted the nomination? 23:53, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
** Top two comments. - Kingcjc 16:30, October 19, 2011 (UTC)
== Second, successful (03/06/2012) ==
Right well here goes... I have been on here for about one and a half years now, I'm very active, I have 18,747 edits and the number just goes up, I'm very experienced here, I know the rules, I know how to correctly use admin rights from the help of the various wiki's I have made, Blocking should be used as a last resort and you should always warn users if they do something wrong, deleting should only be used for deleting spam or inappropriate pages (we do get quite a bit of these), I know people will oppose because of the incidences that have happened in the past involving me but I think I have matured since then. 
===Support===
# The best editor and information hunter around. Great at solving any kind of user dispute. From the desk of Br1ck an1mator 09:03, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
#The only bad thing CGCJ has ever done wrong on here was one or two outbursts, but would be a great admin here. -- 06:53, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
#Some troubling history, but honestly, could benefit from the tools and I think he'll be able to use them well. It's not that big of a deal. 07:08, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
#Yeah, he has had a few temper problems, but he works hard enough on the wiki to deserve admin rights. - 07:32, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
# Awesome User! I actually don't know why he was not an Admin before! 
# Only 1 and a half years!?! Lot's of edits... Full Support! I should add, what Zero said. Go CGCJ! 
# Per Ajr. 13:10, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
# I have nominated this user several times and I regret not doing it this time. Our images of the admins have changed, we do think of them more of the side of being able to control us and dictating our every move. But it is just an extension to editing rights, and no one needs them more than Clone. He must of added half our images here, he gets us all new information and rarely stops editing. But apart from that, he's a great friend, he's mostly on chat and will always be ready to help new editors get started. He is my best friend on this wiki and probably the most deserving non admin of these rights. - Zero
#Per Zero, he is an excellent user! :D -- 14:56, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
#::Clone or me? Ah I know you mean me :P - Zero
# one of our biggest contributors, on a lot. He can use the rights--Brick bobby talk it's a trap! 15:28, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
# Looks like we'll be having a fresh batch of admins soon! - 16:17, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
#:Will we be cookies, or doughnuts? -- 22:37, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
# Per KoN. 16:28, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
# I'm honestly a bit wary of this, but it's worth a shot. 
# Per Cligra and Zero. 16:49, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
# 20:56, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
# Being that he's proved that he's matured with his ChatMod rights, and seeing that my oppose would have absolutely no effect (:P) I'm going to support him. :) 
# βᵒᵇ βʳᶦᶜᵏˢ™ Ʈᵃᶫᵏ · βᶫᵒᵍ
#Why is he not an Admin already!? 
#Has been a great help. Really adds to the Bricki experience! 
===Oppose===
===Neutral===
* Has had issues in the past, but definitely a great contributor to the content here. Can't quite support though 00:53, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
::I understand.
===Comments===
*For users who would like to see my old failed request here it is.
*Yay Ajr Supported.
*:LOL 16:11, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
*::Just don't forget to categorize the images you upload. :P 16:31, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
*:::Hey, I went to Maccas last night :P -- 22:11, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
Category:Brickipedia