UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Suicidalangel

From The Urban Dead Wiki

This is an archive of Suicidalangel's Promotions candidacy, which was rejected by the attending Bureaucrat. Please do not edit it, as it is archived for preservation reasons. If you wish to enquire about the candidate, please use their Talk page.

Suicidal Angel

Well hello everyone! I'm finally done with that play that some of you may have heard about, so I figured I'd kick off my comeback with a bid!

• My first edit was this one, which was May 11 of '07. That makes my stay here almost an entire year.

• In that time frame, I've made some 4500 edits or so. Not all of them contributive, never with harmful intentions. Deletions, anti-vandalism related, suggestions, random talking, the whole shebang.

• I've received two warnings. One for deleting some of 73's talk page to make room for my post (Which, might I add, wasn't a big deal, as it was in jest, and 73 didn't mind), and one for the useless vandal report I made against myself for doing said deletion.

• Yes, I was involved with Assylum level of spam that took place here. Not as much as others, but still involved. But let me ask you this. Did it really cause any harm? Were we not doing it for fun, which is what we should all be doing here? So we caused a few edit conflicts. Made a few pages look a bit messy. In the end, it all ended up okay. We've all learned a bit more self-control. We've matured. Hell, 73 and A Helpful Little Gnome also took part in the Assylum stuffs, and look at 'em now! Both are already in the position I'm trying to get to now.

• This policy was composed by me and Dux to change the guidelines for this very process. The only reason it didn't pass is because, apparently, not enough people saw it to vote on it. I've also tried to voice my opinion on policies, but more often than not, someone has already said what I would have, and it would have been redundant to say it anyways.

• In my stay, I've only had one real conflict with a user on this wiki. That was with this guy and his friends/alt accounts. He tried to take over a group of mine's forum, blatantly ripped off my coding as you can see, tried to get me banned, and generally just caused me a lot of problems. Not to mention the fact that his friends/alt accounts continued to rip my stuff off for the longest time. I'm okay with borrowing coding from others, and modifying it for your own use, but hell, no one really likes to be jipped like that, after spending so much time on something. It was just really annoying, and other that that, I haven't had many problems with other users.

• I haven't been to active in the past month and a half, but like I said, I've been a bit busy. Can't blame me for that can you?

Well, thats the gist of my stay. Definitely not all of it, as my memory isn't always so good, but I tried to tell as much as I could. I encourage you all to ask questions, and I'll answer them to the best of my abilities. Oh, and remember, this isn't a vote, so you all should be vouching/abstaining/againsting by using *'s instead of # signs. ;) --Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 01:45, 29 April 2008 (BST)

• Against - You're not exactly here too much anymore. Last thing we need is another SysOp who doesn't do their job(s).--Karek^maps?! 05:11, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  This would be a Vouch if you had waited a month or some after you've returned and been active again instead of doing this immediately but, I believe it's important to show that you'll be active and participate not say it.--Karek^maps?! 14:58, 29 April 2008 (BST)

• Against - Friendly for sure, and a good to have wiki user, but not a great contributor neither exceptionally apt to fill a leading position. Even your promotion request, that you made yourself, sounds more like a massive apology for your many miscontributions rather than a recount of all what you have done for the good of the wiki. Making a case against yourself as a promotion request either shows you as overconfident or too lame, neither of which is a good trait for a Sysop. --Starplatinum 05:54, 29 April 2008 (BST)
• Against - Don't get me wrong, you're an ok guy, but I'd like to see a little more community work from you, helping a few newbies, maybe help form another policy. another thing is your comments on "this guy", you kinda sounded a little childish, but that may just be me. try again in a couple months.--'BP^Tmz 05:59, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  Maybe a bit childish, but I was pestered by him for quite some time. Fair enough though.--Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 11:12, 29 April 2008 (BST)

• Against - --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 08:54, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  A reason why would be nice. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but being that this isn't a vote, just saying one way or the other doesn't really help the situation.--Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 11:12, 29 April 2008 (BST)

• Vouch - Its about time Suicide stepped up and volunteered to be useful. Sure he has a sense of humour but that is no bad thing (especially when we have harmless practical jokes causing reams of drama because some folk don't like to laugh) I believe he can be trusted 100% not to rule on things with bias, trusted 100% on trying to diffuse Drama and trusted 100% on still being here and active in 6 months. Does he have the skills? People steal his code so that would suggest yes. Does he know how things work? He has tried to break one or two of them and realized how much of a pain that could be so again I think we can say yes. At the end of the day SA is a guy who is willing to lend a hand to pretty much anyone who asks and will not judge anothers mistakes too harshly and surely that is exactly the kind of Sysop we need? --Honestmistake 09:47, 29 April 2008 (BST)
• Against - Inactive, immature, etc. Needs more proof of a reform. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:11, 29 April 2008 (BST)
• Against - I think you'd make a good sysop and would support your nomination except that you put it forward immediately after being away for a month, inactive sysops are lame so wait a bit, be active, then try again and you can expect my vouch.--J3D^SR! 10:39, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  Why thankee. If the biggest problem is that little bout of inactivity, then I guess I'm doing pretty good!--Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 11:12, 29 April 2008 (BST)

• Vouch - i have no issues with suicidal becoming a sysop, in fact i only have reasons to believe that he would do good in the team... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:25, 29 April 2008 (BST)
• Vouch - Good sysop material. Doesn't tend to get pissed off, helpful, polite and funny, though will also follow the guidelines and rules laid down for sysops and take it responsibly. Warnings in the past and for trivial things, due in part to a bunch of stuff that I instigated and got way out of hand. Of those of us who where part of all that and are still present, we've all grown up a bit and learnt from our mistakes. Long history of editing on the wiki, so he knows enougth about editing to do the job. I kind of want to ask exactly what areas he will be focusing on as sysop, but from my experiance that's a bugger to answer until you are actualy promoted! As for the relative absense of late, well, we all have RL stuff that takes precidence from time to time. If he was applying for a paid position in a company then I would find it a problem that he wasn't realy around for a few weeks, but seeing as he is asking to be promoted to sysop for the wiki then I realy don't see the problem. Good luck!--Seventythree^Talk 14:07, 29 April 2008 (BST)
• against - i don't think you're quite ready to be a sysop... this is based on what i've seen lately, not on past shenanagins... i think it needs some time yet. --WanYao 18:43, 29 April 2008 (BST)
• Against - Inactive, immature, no real outstanding qualities. The audaciousness of nominating himself hardly helps either. -Grarr 20:31, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  Fair enough. One big thing though, I'm a guy. I've modified your comment to show that.--Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 20:51, 29 April 2008 (BST)

• Against - I do want to mention first off that we can blame you for anything we damn well please. I've never heard of you doing any major edits. Sure. You've been here for a year. Fantastic. But that doesn't mean you're entitled to anything. Going to your actual accomplishments you have listed, they include all of a failed policy. Not to mention your warnings. And on top of that inactivity. It looks pretty clear cut to me. --Vandurn 20:43, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  I know I can be blamed for anything. It's a commonly used phrase in various parts of the world. No need to get all hostile over something as trivial as that.--Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 20:51, 29 April 2008 (BST)

• Against - It's nice that you go out of your way to disclose problems in your past but putting together all those flaws does not an "Angel" make. On top of this I feel the current Admin team is doing a fine job. If they officially put out a call for more Admin members then I might consider your bid. BTW the current vote is 10 Against and 3 Vouch. It would be nice if you could actually create and organize the voting sections *cough*--  ^Z_Z 21:14, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  First of all, this is not a vote, so "votes" dont need to be organized as the input of those above influence the way the people vote below, so this is a better way to understand the flow on opinions abou the user. Second, having too much admins is not an issue, we can live really well with all our userbase being part of the administration staff, if they were mature enough to earn that right... the probem is by having too few sysops, as it provides few eyes to fight terrorism... erm, vandalism... therefore, the more the merrier. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:20, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  Dang it Haggie, I was just about to correct him too! There goes that well typed message...--Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 21:26, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  I'm surprised that anyone anywhere on this wiki is supposed to be influenced by someone's votes. I feel that there can always be too much of a good thing, including admins. With too many admins and not enough for them to do even "mature" people start getting bored and that's when drama happens. Also, wish I had scrolled up to read that SuicideAngel is a guy so I could have made fun of him in my original vote.--  ^Z_Z 21:57, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  Fell free to make fun of me now, if you really feel the need to. And it's Suicidal Angel. Not Suicide. :P --Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 22:05, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  If only.--  ^Z_Z 22:24, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  Oh man, I wish I had half your cunning wit. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:31, 29 April 2008 (BST)

  Wow. So original Zardoz. Like I haven't heard that a pissload of times. :) --Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 22:37, 29 April 2008 (BST)

• Vouch - Knows the ropes. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 21:16, 29 April 2008 (BST)
• Vouch As long as you show your renewed activeness over the 2 weeks of voting. --Rosslessness 21:26, 29 April 2008 (BST)
• VouchIoncannon11 00:19, 30 April 2008 (BST)
• Abstain - You have done some good work, but your recent inactivity hurts my willingness to vouch. If you reapplied again in a few weeks after contributing consistently, then I would surely change my mind. --ZsH 00:58, 30 April 2008 (BST)
• Vouch As promised. It's the little things, Angel. Keep them up! <3 DDR 01:20, 30 April 2008 (BST)

*Against- Although I agree with you becoming a sysop on your own your association, however remote, with Akule would not allow me to vouch for you. -- BKM 01:43, 30 April 2008 (BST)

• What the heck are you talking about? Akule has nothing at all to do with this bid. He hasn't even edited this page since I put the bid up! You people confuse me sometimes...--Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 11:01, 30 April 2008 (BST)

  I think he's trying to say that your being an associate of Akule's is making him vote against. --Grarr 20:46, 1 May 2008 (BST)

  I thought of that explanation at first, but one little fact got me. I'm not an associate of his either. Thats why it doesn't make sense to me.

  It's not that you are an associate of Akule it is just the very fact that you associate with him. -- BKM 07:04, 2 May 2008 (BST)

  Um - Akule isn't actualy the Antichrist y'know.... Even if you disagree with him utterly and despise him, which you apparently appear to, I don't see how you can have a go at Suicidal Angel for asscociating with him occasionaly (It's not like he's even had that much contact with him - not that it matters). To be honest if Suicidal Angel had absolutely no contact with Akule because he hated him, or constantly rowed with him which is what you seem to want I'd think that would show him incapable of negotiation or even basic communication skills, counting against him becoming sysop!--Seventythree^Talk 07:21, 2 May 2008 (BST)

  Good points, I never said he is the anti-christ, I simply do not like him and I never said that SA had a tight link with him, but because people won't leave the subject alone I will withdraw my vote. -- BKM 07:38, 3 May 2008 (BST)

• Vouch Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 20:52, 1 May 2008 (BST)

  Discussion to the talk page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 08:00 3 May 2008 (BST)

• Vouch Although my personal stance is people that ask for power shouldn't be given any, I am swayed by your Katthew is Awesome attitude. Now, should this sysop thing happen and you piss me off I will be after you with the full force of my unholy fury. Remember that. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 15:01, 3 May 2008 (BST)

  I thank you for your support, and I'll try my best not to piss you off. It shouldn't be too hard not to. :)--Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 16:04, 3 May 2008 (BST)

• Against Your arguments /for/ being voted in worry me. LiekMudkip
• Against - I read your request, then had to read it again three more times, and as yet i fail to see any of the following pieces of information:
  1. Why you want to be a sysop. The only conclusion one can gather from your post is that you either want ton be like your friends, or for the presumed presige, neither of which is a good justification, nor is the less strongly implied reason that you want your voice to count for more (Your points on participation on Vandal banning lead into this). All of these things are the exact opposite of the ideal candidates motivations, and as a result based on this alone id have to say very strongly opposed.
  2. You spend most of your bid trying to explain away various flaws, such as your immaturity with Vandal Banning and the Assylum.
  3. You cannot be inactive for a month or so then suddenly jump back in and say "Make me a sysop". No activity means no compulsion to even seriously consider the request.
  4. We dont particularly care about a minor conflict in the distant past with another user that barely even made a blip on the radar at the time. No need to devote such a comparatively large section of your bid to explaining it. A simple note would have done: "I had only one major isue with another user, but that was settled months ago and never erupted into full scale drama" would have sufficed.
  5. You provide only a single, four month old example of trying to improve the wiki. Such examples must both be numerous and spread out over time, indicating a prolonged and continuing dedication to improving this wiki, not just a one hit wonder, or in your case, an abortive fizzle.

Based on all of the above, i have to conclude that you are not a fit candidate to be a sysop. If you really really want it, then you probably shouldnt get it. But it you wish to disregard this, then i strongly suggest you leave it a year and do something actually contributive in that time. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:26, 4 May 2008 (BST)

• Responding on talk page to save space here.--Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 20:22, 5 May 2008 (BST)

• Against - 20 is already twice as many sysops as are necessary, especially when half don't hardly ever do anything and only 1 or 2 of what's left are worth more than 3 pieces of shit. --Kid sinister 06:09, 4 May 2008 (BST)
  • Three of them doesnt count (administrative accounts owned by Kevan), one is inactive since february and another is about to be demoted on his own request.... that makes 15 active sysops. Not enough, imho. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:48, 4 May 2008 (BST)
  • That's a poor reason. You may have a point when we reach 30+ active sysops, but not less than 20. -- AHLGTH 21:00, 6 May 2008 (BST)
    • Guess where you two fit in to my summary? --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 02:55, 7 May 2008 (BST)
• Against - as Grim, essentially. Or, to paraphrase the Murphy: "what have you done for [us] lately?" --Funt Solo ^QT 15:42, 4 May 2008 (BST)
• Against - i dont see anything special about your own case to being promoted. i also share concerns about recent inactivity --Scotw 16:21, 4 May 2008 (BST)
• Against - There are enough sysops already, and if there weren't, I think we could get a better candidate. No offense. --Randyest 22:01, 4 May 2008 (BST)
• Against - All reasons already given. Iunnrais 00:26, 5 May 2008 (BST)
• Vouch - When you were active you were all over the wiki, so activity is a check. I've seen you very willing to discuss things with other users and just looking up on this page, you are far more willing to take discussions onto other pages rather than have a huge argument on a page. --Akule ^{OH, YEAAHH!} 01:09, 6 May 2008 (BST)
• Vouch - Meh, I'm sure his activity will improve, recent changes addicts don't die easily. Helps around, does... stuff, contributes to policies, even if they don't pass. Good natured, lieks mudkipz too much, though. -- AHLGTH 21:00, 6 May 2008 (BST)
• Vouch - I think that because of his previous edits, his good nature, humor, and his examples of deleting bad comments, I'm all for it. Or perhaps I'm making up excuses because of the funny template he gave me...who knows XP. Chill 20:22, 7 May 2008 (BST)
• Vouch - As teh Gnomz. -- Cheese ^{WTF!RandomSysOp?} 22:52, 7 May 2008 (BST)
• Against - As Grim, as always. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 06:56, 10 May 2008 (BST)

I'd like to say, whether I get promoted or not, thank you all for your opinions and views. It's a lot easier to work on your own deficiencies when you have someone else to point them out for you.--Suicidal Angel ^{Kitten Huffing ?} 00:29, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Thanks for coming SA, but I'm afraid, at this time, your promotion bid has been unsuccessful. Perhaps a bit more active involvement in policy discussions to show you have a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of current wiki policy, and the rules in general, would help in the future -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:44 17 May 2008 (BST)