Bureaucrat status

Just to clarify, I was made a temporary bureaucrat to deal with the admin nominations that already piled up. Angela didn't have the time to deal with it herself immediately, and will probably remove that status later. However, it seems as if another bureaucrat might be a good idea. Are there any suggestions regarding a nomination procedure for bureaucrats? -- Cid Highwind 16:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I just checked, seems as if I'm still a bureaucrat. I don't need to keep that position, but I think we need at least one active bureaucrat on MA/en. Since there hasn't been any formal nomination/voting procedure, I just want to bring this up for discussion. Please voice any possible objections with me having this status here. -- Cid Highwind 15:15, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I certainly support you remaining a bureaucrat; we could definitely use an extra one. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 21:38, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Possibly another, since the first two are AWOL. --Alan del Beccio 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

List of admins

  • Jan H. Kobarg (en, de:, de: nl:) => twice "de" to change
  • eo and pl admins are lacking

Spanish admins

The admin there is ElAuriano - one of our admins should list that here. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --From Andoria with Love 23:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am admin of MA/es too. --Sr Vulcano 11:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Rollback feature

There's a new feature available, allowing bureaucrats to give out a "rollback right" to non-admin users. This right basically consists of an additional link on diff pages, allowing to easily rollback an edit.

Any user already can do a "manual" rollback by editing an older version of the page, so this isn't really an additional right like the admin rights of blocking and deleting. I'm not sure we need a complicated vote&discuss policy for giving out those rights. Would anyone mind me giving these rights to a handful of trustable "residents"? (Note:I already gave this right to User:Bp). -- Cid Highwind 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that at all. (Except for that Bp guy... I would give him the time of day, much less any extra rights! :P) -- Renegade54 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

New or questionable users

Would anybody be against the addition of a rule stating that votes of newly registered users or users with a questionable history will not be counted? This is obviously in relation to our recent nomination in which StoryMaster, who has done nothing but disrupt the community, opposed Enzo's nomination, obviously because his own nomination failed miserably. Since new users likely won't be familiar with a nominee's edits, anyway, I don't think their votes should count. --From Andoria with Love 03:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I would. Who decides which people's votes don't count? Anyone's vote should count. As long as they have a justified explanation for such. If they state that they have a problem with edits, then examples must be provided, with an explanation for why such edits are a problem, etc. That would be a better addition to the policy. -- Sulfur 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, by "new" I mean someone who's been here less than a week (I think that's when the server stops recognizing users as new), and by "questionable history", I mean those who have vandalized, disrupted, harassed, and so forth, and have done basically nothing else since they've been here.
Re:sulfur. That's what the policy currently says; a reasonable explanation needs to be provided, particularly for objections. I'm just suggesting this new policy to further ensure that we avoid the "riff-raff", as it were. ;) --From Andoria with Love 03:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request un-speedy delete of images

I spent the good part of today updating and expanded United States military insignia and in the last five minutes, without discussion or explanation, three insignia images were speedy deleted and then blanked from the article. These images were:

File:US o-8 rank pin.png

File:US o-7 rank pin.png

File:US o-1 rank pin.png

I think this was kind of rude since I started a talk page disucssion on the very subject. My whole point is that even though the images were not seen, they are implied by other insignia, much like several of the images seen in Starfleet ranks (higher Admiral ranks which never appear on screen). In any event, there was one comment posted by User:Captainmike and then the images started getting deleted. CM has since claimed the images are his property and he has the right to speedy delete without discussion which I don't believe is the case [1]. My understanding is that once you post to this site it becomes community property. And, for that matter, a User cannot lay copyright claim to a generic military insignia picture. This should have been discussed, especally since I took the time to start the discussion. I ask that these images be undeleted until this can be sorted out. (P.S.- Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this) -FleetCaptain 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Talk:United States military insignia. -- Cid Highwind 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved Merge Request

I was just wondering if an admin could merge Warrant Officer into Starfleet ranks. Three votes for and none against. Shouldnt be any problem with merging it in. I could also do it myself if such a thing is permitted. -FC 04:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Merges get dealt with on a semi-regular basis. Generally, pestering does nothing, In this case, I did it because I'm cranky. -- Sulfur 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I didnt mean to pester, only inquire and advise. The last time I tried to do something like this myself, I was told not to but rather contact an administrator. Thanks for doing it in any event! -FC

New Admins and Bureaucrats German MA

Just for the page here. We has some more admins and bureaucrats.

Admins: Roggan, Klossi and Tobi72

Bureaucrats: Bravomike, Shisma and Cid Highwind

--Tobi72 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is another change in MA/de. We have another Administrator: Plasmarelais. Could you please add him?--Tobi72 20:27, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Morder (talk) 20:50, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Tobi72 21:27, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, there are some more changes in MA/de.

Bravomike was changed from Bureaucrat to Admin on his own request and Klossi, Plasmarelais and Tobi72 were promoted to Bureaucrats. Please help to update the page.--Tobi72 22:05, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks for informing us. -- sulfur 01:02, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

No problem and thx for the change.--Tobi72 12:51, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Hi again and happy new year. We got two now Administrators in MA/de today. One is User:Mark McWire and one User:HenK. Please help to add them here too. Thank you!--Tobi72 00:25, January 22, 2011 (UTC)


This page seems to contain a contradiction; the introductory paragraph states, "Administrators still have the same responsibilities as any other regular user", but the page then goes on to list additional privileges & responsibilities that admins have! I therefore think the sentence should be deleted/changed, but I don't exactly know what to change it to, as I'm unaware of the writer's original intent in adding it. Does anyone know what it's meant to mean, or should it just be deleted? --Defiant 10:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Different definition of responsibility there - in terms of context. Responsibility there, to me, would mean something along the lines of keeping the community a nice place. Not resorting to anything just because "I'm an administrator". Adding and removing content on site. That sort of thing. Maybe change the word "responsibilities" to "requirements". — Morder (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The first sentence is supposed to mean: "You don't lose any of the responsibilities that all users have by becoming an admin." The second statement that defines additional responsibilities. I think that's pretty obvious from the context, but I think just removing the word "same" from the first sentence should do the trick. -- Cid Highwind 12:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Memory Alpha Japanese Administrator

Hello! My name is User:captainbond. I am Japanese. I'm solly. I cannot speak English.

I am Administrator & Bureaucrat of Memory Alpha Japanese. Please add me to the following lists. Live long and prosper.(長寿と繁栄を)--ボンド大佐 05:56, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

The second bureaucrat

Not that I have anything against the guy, but I don't know why Erik Möller should still be a bureaucrat since we aren't using his hosting service and he's not an active contributor. That said, I still think we need a second, active bureaucrat, if only to stop Cid from become one of those crazy commodores drunk on their own power. Since there isn't any formal nomination procedure, or de-nomination procedure for that matter, I bring it up here. - Archduk3 09:02, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth attempting to contact Erik and see if he is still interested or not. Either way, it's probably a good idea to have another bureaucrat.--31dot 09:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Considering his last edit was in 2005, I think it's safe to say he wouldn't be, but I could be wrong. That said, how should we move forward on this new bureaucrat thing? Just put an admin up up for votes at the Nominations for administratorship page? It seems to me it would be a bit silly to create a Nominations for bureaucraticness(?) page if it's only going to be used very rarely, when we have one that would work. Ideas? - Archduk3 03:03, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the admin nomination page would do just fine in this case. -- Renegade54 04:00, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I sent an email to Erik inviting him to the discussion, or at least I sent an email to the address he has list as of 2008 on his site. - Archduk3 01:03, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Erik got back to me and said his bureaucrat flag should be removed. I'll contact wikia tomorrow on this. - Archduk3 03:02, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Being the "sole active bureaucrat" didn't make me power-hungry and/or crazy during the better part of the last five years - so I consider a stupid comment like that, even if made in jest, to be insulting. Thank you very much.
Regarding the addition of another bureaucrat, I wouldn't mind that, especially if it's sulfur as suggested. The thing is, though, that bureaucrats currently have exactly one additional function over admins - they manage user rights. Seeing how even that minimal task is circumvented as we speak, by other people running to Wikia directly, I'm sure we won't need further additional bureaucrats anytime soon... -- Cid Highwind 09:08, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Let me first say I'm sorry, since that comment was said in jest, even though I didn't add the smiley. I didn't think anyone could take it seriously, what with it being entirely unsubstantiated, and it was not my intention to be insulting. So, please excuse my poor taste.

That said, the whole reason I brought this up was to reduce even a remote possible reason we would have to turn to wikia. The only reason I was going to contact them at all is because it's my understanding that only they can remove a bureaucrat flag. If that's wrong, then by all means excuse my ignorance and their entirely unhelpful help page on the matter. I can forward the relevant email to you if you feel like I'm trying to go around you in some way, since that is not my intention there either. Let me say that I don't see a need for more than two active bureaucrats, a few more admins maybe, since the idea is the more the better, but not another bureaucrat. - Archduk3 12:59, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

You're right, a bureaucrat can not take away bureaucrat rights, but only add them. The only other right a bureaucrat has (in addition to admin rights) is to both give and take admin and rollback rights.
Perhaps the question needs to be: What job exactly do we want our bureaucrats to perform? There hasn't really been any need to answer that question yet... if the answer is that the bureaucrat just needs to push buttons as requested by the community, then that task can be performed by a very small number of bureaucrats, and we just need to make sure that not all of them get killed in freak accidents at the same time (and, really, not even that, because Wikia could just hand out new bureaucrat rights in that worst case scenario). On the other hand, if we want the bureaucrats to actively "maintain" some specific part of this Wiki (like, for example, user rights) in full, then that should perhaps include getting in contact with Wikia to have them push the buttons that the bureaucrats can't push themselves.
Regarding Erik (User:Eloquence), I suggest to also remove admin rights while we're at it. Not as some sort of punishment for inactivity, but seeing that this user hasn't been active in five years and can't be considered an "active admin" any longer. -- Cid Highwind 14:16, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Erik actually requested that his admin rights be removed as well. He was actually surprised that it hadn't already been done.

As for what a bureaucrat should do, I agree with what you said. Having a bureaucrat also actually make the "official" requests on behalf of the community (like namespace additions/changes or turning on/off new features) after some discussion on the topic is something I've always thought you did anyway, so that could be included as well IMO. A bureaucrat should also act as arbiter if conflicts arise between admins, not that i foresee any, just that it has happened before. I don't think any of that is really new, so actually writing it down shouldn't change anything. - Archduk3 14:46, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Change in MA/de

One of our Admins gave up his Status as Administrator. Please remove User:Defchris / Christopher Heumann from the list. Thank you.--Tobi72 10:10, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, please note, the following people are no longer Administrators or Bureaucrats in the German version of Memory Alpha:

  1. Dan Carlson
  2. Harry Doddema
  3. Kobi
  4. Eloquence
  5. Florian
  6. Spocky
  7. Eelco
  8. Roggan

They are either deselected or resigned as administrators or bureaucrats by themself. Please help to keep the list updated.--Tobi72 00:02, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

French admins

  • User:C-IMZADI-4 : Admin since 2009, Bureaucrat since 2010
  • User:Kobi : Should we remove him ? Sysop rights given for technical MA-fr issues at the time
  • User:Conruyt : sysop rights removed because he created a new identity User:Star Trek Man also admin (Conruyt being his real name) - he's rather inactive for the moment, but we still have contact
  • User:Rcog : sysop rights removed - inactive since 2006
Actual MA-fr admins are : Philoust123 (B), C-IMZADI (B), Star Trek Man (a)
Actual international MA-fr admins : Kobi (B), Cid Highwind (B)

- From Cardassia with pain 20:25, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Can someone change update MA-fr admins ? - From Cardassia with pain 01:51, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Done. - Archduk3 02:10, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Latest change in German MA

Can you please add D47h0r as an Administrator for MA/de? Best regards and happy new year.--Tobi72 22:05, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

And Sanyoh is not longer Administrator in MA/de. Can someone please change the two things?--Tobi72 20:17, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Done. --31dot 21:51, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Tobi72 22:35, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

An appeal against inequality

The removal of my admin status was obviously due to a clear and distinct breaking of the rules! Either the policies of MA allow for such an action, or they don't, but I shouldn't be the one and only case where a nonexistent rule is suddenly made up, directly on the spot, as that's the very definition of unfairness. And I'm not saying I'm a perfect contributor; I make errors, just like everyone else who's Human. I just will not stand for something that's so clearly unfair. I strongly believe either my admin status should be reinstated (especially since it was the abrupt consequence of a misunderstood joke, of all things!) or we should create grounds for admins to be removed in a general sense, or maybe even both. Surely, there are other editors who prefer if equality was part of this site. I'm not going to just "stop bringing it up," as was so wrongfully posted in the edit summary of where this post was, originally. --Defiant 08:54, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'd ask the admins who apparently have a problem with me even raising this how they would be affected if the same thing happened to them. If you were just happily editing away, advising a newbie of the policies and guidelines, and a bureaucrat suddenly decided to remove your admin status on the spot, even though there's absolutely no grounds for that, with it not having happened to any other user in the past and with there being no signs of it becoming a regular thing. --Defiant 09:08, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

I thought that you voluntarily surrendered your admin status? If you didn't want it removed you shouldn't have said "Could someone please remove my admin status, then? In light of this misunderstanding, I clearly don't even have as much knowledge about what constitutes admin-related issues as I thought I did!" 31dot 09:45, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
If you're saying that statement was a joke, it was a poor joke for you to make, frankly- and you didn't point out that it was a joke or otherwise object to the removal of your status. If President Obama sent a joke letter to Hillary Clinton saying he resigned his office, but didn't tell her it was a joke, he can't go back later and ask her for his job back. I'm sorry, but I'm not very sympathetic to your position on this issue.31dot 09:52, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
Defiant, if a joke to you is asking for your status to be removed, and then after two hours when it is, thanking the guy who did it, I'm pretty sure you shouldn't be an admin on those grounds alone. Your overall behavior on this matter, and others, has been pretty erratic, and this attempt to rewrite history here is just proof that you were right to relinquish your powers.
@ 31dot, see this page at Wikipedia on the succession of the presidency, as Clinton has to get through a few other people first. Completely unrelated to your point, but good to know nonetheless. - Archduk3 14:54, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your links, but I was referring to the actual resignation, not succession- Nixon turned in his resignation letter to Secretary of State Kissinger, at the time. :) 31dot 15:00, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that makes more sense. - Archduk3 15:10, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

I still think it's really pretty blatantly a joke. I have realized that there are two factors that seem to have possibly complicated matters, though; the American difficulties with understanding sarcasm & irony, and the lack of theory of mind associated with my own Aspergers Syndrome. I bet if you'd said something similar in a pub anywhere in the UK, though, it'd be immediately understood; i.e., if you'd said something like, "I'm on the moon, right now!" And I still strongly believe that Cid could have waited to determine if I seriously meant what I'd suggested in a sarcastic fashion, as I remember another admin trying to do (before Cid interfered). Plus, I really don't think it's fair to suggest that your lack of understanding blatant sarcasm is a reason why I shouldn't be an admin. I won't rest my case until one of the above scenarios have been carried out (I'm reinstated, we adopt a new policy whereby other admins can be demoted, or both), putting an end to this injustice. --Defiant 17:11, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

Your threat to not rest your case could be considered disrupting the site to make a point and if it goes on long enough I might just do that.
It is very hard to convey sarcasm and irony with text communication- and there isn't even a hint of that in your request to be de-admined. I don't think being American has anything to do with it. If you haven't, or are unable to, master conveying sarcasm, then I wouldn't use it in my posts. Asking to be stripped of your powers and giving what seems to be a good reason can only lead to being stripped of your powers. It's isn't up to us to convince you or harass you to keep your own powers- if you ask for them to be removed, they will be. You didn't protest the removal, AFAIK, until recently. 31dot 17:34, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
As to your scenarios, 1) you are not going to be reinstated without the proper discussion(if you really want to go there) which would require someone else nominating you again; and 2) you are well aware that several efforts have been made to develop a policy to remove admins, but none has gained traction or agreement. If you want to revisit that discussion, you know where to find them or start a new one. 31dot 17:39, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
[edit conflict] - Since all of your actions during and immediately after this in no way suggest anything other than sincerity for your actions, I'm not going to buy this significantly after the fact reinterpretation of your own actions under the veil of a diagnosable problem. Your own reasoning for the removal of your admin powers was you dismissing another user because you clearly didn't understand the policy on the matter, and you have continually demonstrate a lack of understanding with MA's policies and guidelines. That, and your lack of ability to communicate clearly and consistently in a text based format, along with your blatant rejection of consensuses you don't agree with, to the point of refusing to even acknowledge that a consensus exists, means that you don't even qualify for the position of admin. Oh, and most of what the UK claims is "sarcasm & irony" is trite, so it's not that Americans don't understand it, it's just that most of the poor souls clinging to that foggy rock in the North Atlantic aren't very good at it, and have compounded the matter by celebrating it. Of course, maybe making dismissive generalizations about people isn't the best way to win them to your cause. Get it? - Archduk3 17:56, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
Aside: Cid is German, I'm Canadian. We both discussed it when you posted that message. Even reading it again now, I see nothing in there that suggests that it might be sarcasm or even irony. -- sulfur 20:09, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to set some things straight, for the record, as some users clearly keep reading things into my comments that are unintended. For example, my statement that "I won't rest my case" was in no way meant as "a threat" (despite the implied accusation that it was); it was information that I was letting you know. I have remained true to this, continuing to raise my case with higher authorities (due to the levels of abuse I have received here), as I planned and suggested I'd do. I appreciate the difficulties with conveying sarcasm in a text-based format, but sadly didn't at the time, so I'm sorry about that. I wonder what the other admins make of the obviously intentionally offensive racism aimed at users from the UK, and meant no such racism to Americans myself (it's why I said that the difficulties I have heard associated with Americans and sarcasm were only "possibly" involved). Plus, it would seem to make very little sense for me to be such a big fan of Star Trek, if I did have anything against Americans!

Contrary to what a lot of you apparently remember, the truth about my having meant to make a joke is nothing new. (As can be seen here, I discussed this with Cid more than 6 months ago.) I strongly suggest that, in future, if there's just a brief hint that someone would like their admin status removed (a very, very unlikely scenario, hence the joke), you ask them for confirmation first (as 31dot wisely attempted to do, before being interrupted). Personally, I'm really tired of the discrimination (both against the condition I have, which I am willing to prove, if that's what it finally takes!, and now my race). Meanwhile, I thought this was meant to be a fun editing environment for Trekkies. For at least the time being, I consider this a closed case; please do not continue to blame me for Cid's total misunderstanding of a well-meant jest and the very abrupt, unnecessary action that followed. I very much hope that will settle matters, as I have nothing but good faith that we can continue to cooperate on a site that is such a great resource for Star Trek. :) --Defiant 22:31, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Archduk was not trying to be racist towards UK citizens, he was illustrating a point- that your generalization about Americans was not helping your cause. Maybe you now understand how saying (to paraphrase) "Americans can't understand sarcasm and irony" might feel- which is the point that was trying to be made.
Your discussion 6 months ago was 5 months after your status was removed. Why did you not protest the removal of your status on July 15th, 2011, the day after it was removed(or at any point immediately after)? You've had the last year (just about) to do so. Why do it now?
I don't need any condition you might have proven to me. But it is up to you to make sure your comments and intentions are understood. If you have difficulty with sarcasm in a text-based environment(for any reason) then you shouldn't employ it. If you make a joke, you should make it clear immediately or not do it. 31dot 22:57, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
[edit conflict] - The term you're looking for is nationalism, not racism, since discrimination based on your country of origin is the former, while discrimination based on the color of your skin is the latter.
And as to that, it would seem that an American now has to explain "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt" to an Englishman (and/or Scotsman/Welshman/Northern Irishman), since the intent there was to use "language that normally signifies the opposite...for humorous or emphatic effect." I even hung a lampshade on the whole thing but pointing it out in the last sentence. Of course, the overall point was to demonstrate that you yourself couldn't ID what you claimed you were using, hence you only have yourself to blame if anyone took you at your word. As for your word, since your apology to OvBacon was part and parcel with you relinquishing your powers, should we now assume that was also a "joke"? - Archduk3 23:03, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

No, that's yet another thing you're misinterpreting, as the two posts are clearly not "part and parcel" of each other; there's very obviously a space between the two posts, with an extremely clear distinction between the joke and the other message. How about you just go and read the thing before commenting on it? Or maybe assuming something you don't really know (in this case, that you haven't read it) isn't very advisable. Also, the dictionary definition of "race" (the term I actually used; not "racism") is "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity," so it's nothing to do with skin coloration necessarily. I admit that I struggle with irony and sarcasm, which I have already realized and conceded (long ago, in fact). I have also determined it's probably best that I refrain from trying to make such jokes, particularly in a text-based medium (another decision that was made and outlined, again, long ago). --Defiant 23:41, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, it was very, very difficult to explain that the situation was due, in part, to my condition; I try to keep that as hidden as possible, due to it being intensely personal and due to the discrimination that may consequently arise (as it apparently has, unfortunately, in this case). It makes little sense for these statements to be disputed, as only I really know (though, as I have stated, I would be willing to make an effort to prove my condition), and honesty is quite often a part of it too. --Defiant 23:52, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

"I frankly don't have the time to rake through all [of your] past edits", but unlike you when you posted that, I'm already familiar with the entire issue here, so I don't have to go back and look at it again. By the way, nationalism is just the more accurate word for what you where accusing me of, actually using the word "racism". - Archduk3 00:17, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

No, I indeed wished to point out that you were being racist. You were right about me having used the word "racism," though; my mistake, so apologies for that. Your statement that you're "already familiar with the entire issue here" is obviously false, since only I can know whether I intended to make a joke or not; I alone know that it was meant in jest, whereas you can believe that truth or not. Do you believe this arguing really gets us anywhere, Archduk? Is it too hard for you to accept that, while I was wrong to make comment on such a serious topic by joking about it, the rash action of going against all the policies and guidelines we have by abruptly removing my admin status without confirmation was also a mistake? Each had their own reasons, but does that mean neither of those two actions were in error? --Defiant 10:24, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna jump in here for a bit... sorry if I step on any toes. First, a few things up front: first, I don't really care if Defiant is or is not an admin; I know there have been some issues in the past, many of them seemingly personality-related, but there have been plenty of those with others over time as well. Second, I do care about equality and rules being applied uniformly and not randomly or on some whim. Having said that, I'm not sure how Aspergers fits into all this. My step-daughter, who lives with us, is very (high-functioning) Aspergers, and I'm active in support groups locally and regionally and participate in an advisory group at the state level. So, I'm very familiar with what Aspergers entails. What aspect of it applies here, in your case? -- Renegade54 16:40, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Especially the mind-blindness/lack of "theory of mind" part, as no part of me thought my joke would be misunderstood; I understood it, so I automatically assumed that others would do, too. Also, I would guess the tendency for honesty, as my lack of familiarity with anything not completely true (sarcasm, irony, lies, etc.) is probably a part of why the joke didn't come off as a joke and why it wasn't (and isn't) clear to an NT what was intended. --Defiant 17:43, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

MA/de - Update

Please be aware there are two changes in the German MA. Please remove "Plasmarelais" from the list, since he gave up his role as Admin and Bureaucrat. The second change is about "Björn Mielbrandt". He now is Bureaucrat. So please also change his entry. Thank you.--Tobi72 (talk) 12:27, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks! -- sulfur (talk) 12:36, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Terrible site performance, becoming unusable

Moved to Forum:Poor performance. 31dot (talk) 21:29, July 22, 2016 (UTC)


Can anyone change the DeltaFlyer of CN into Wesley_Crusher? Since Delta has not been online for years. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2007xn (talk • contribs).

Second bureaucrat?

I've noticed Cid Highwind is grayed out, so there's now only one active bureaucrat on MA/en (i.e. Sulfur). Perhaps the site could do with another(?) --Defiant (talk) 12:42, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

I thought the only function of a bureaucrat was to make other users into administrators(could be wrong). Is there an urgent need to do so? And whom would you suggest? 31dot (talk) 13:06, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

There's no urgent need, and I don't really have anyone particular in mind. I just thought the "norm" was to have 2 active bureaucrats at once. I at least think the text should be modified, as it refers to Cid and Sulfur as being the 2 current bureaucrats, but doesn't specify that only 1 of them is active nowadays. --Defiant (talk) 13:10, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
Would have made that minor change myself, but I see the page has been "protected". --Defiant (talk) 13:11, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

The point of a second bureaucrat is to not have a single point of failure. We should have two. - Archduk3 15:05, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

Good point; I agree. --Defiant (talk) 17:58, January 29, 2017 (UTC)


This admin (english version are not listed. Please add him. --Ten of Thirteen 19:45, March 22, 2020 (UTC)

He is on the list and if you can't see that, then you needn't be worrying yourself about it. --Alan (talk) 22:09, March 22, 2020 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.