UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/The General/2010-05-02 Re-Evaluation

Administration » Sysop Archives » The General » 2010-05-02 Re-Evaluation

Browse the Sysop Archives
Bureaucrat Promotions \| Demotions \| Misconduct (TBD) \| Promotions \| Re-Evaluations
2006 \| 2007 \| 2008 \| 2009 \| 2010 \| 2011 \| 2012 \| 2013 \| 2014 \| 2015 \| 2016 \| 2017 \| 2018 \| 2019

User:The General

An old reminder on my phone just woke me up to tell me that it's time already for the second batch of A/RE bids, and General is first. I'll give him a heads up on his talk page. --

05:12, 2 May 2010 (BST)

It's pretty obvious which way this is going to go and, to be honest, it is time. I've requested demotion anyway so this can be wrapped up a few hours early if anyone wishes. I've always said that additional sysops is a good thing and it shouldn't matter how active they are, but I took this rather a step too far. I may come back at a later date but, for now at least, I'm joining Hagnat as the last of the old dinosaurs to go.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:56, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Against - Nothing personal to General but nothing he could say would make me support him as an op, when I was an op I scowled as he passed his first A/RE bid by doing two weeks of work before said bid (the only work I've really seen him do in 12 months prior) and, well, it's the only work I've seen him do since. He was given the benefit of the doubt by the community though, but I feel he hasn't satisfied any requirements to say he would make good on his opportunity to make good as a sysop. --

05:12, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against lolwut WHO? 05:19, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against Same as above really,... I haven't really seen him do anything. -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 05:21, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against - I saw him around a few months ago. I was surprised when I saw him. I wasn't surprised when I saw him making clerical errors that had to be corrected by other sysops. He's not around, and "Sysop" is not meant to be a status symbol, which is all he seems to be using it for. He's a nice enough guy, but a sysop he is not. —Aich on— 06:28, 2 May 2010 (BST)
against - as per mis. --
- Timmah!
- Talk
06:53, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against - Inactivity is bad, k.--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 11:24, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against - Pow, pow, pow.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:31, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against - He managed to sneak through the first A/RE bid, but there's no way he should get through this one. We need active sysops.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 11:47, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against - A no-brainer.--Thadeous Oakley 12:44, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against as above. plus it's been so long since i've had to deal with him i forgot what a fucking asshole he is to begin with. i would vouch for bob before vouching for this assclown ever again. now to return to doing nothing... unless another vote shows up in the news.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 14:06, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against, due to the obvious inactivity. G F J 14:26, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against - what the fuck ddr puts wiki shit on his phone? Cyberbob Talk 15:23, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against - The General was an excellent wiki contributor and sysop. However, he is not nearly active enough to be considered for the position any more.-- Adward 16:45, 2 May 2010 (BST)
no sorry he was always a literal 13 year old mouth breather Cyberbob Talk 17:35, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Hmm...I seem to recall hearing you say something else not too long ago. "Vouch...I don't think the sysop team could do without him." :P —Aich on— 20:22, 2 May 2010 (BST)
bitch got owned -- Adward 22:28, 2 May 2010 (BST)

if he'd been demoted then there would've been like 2 or 3 sysops left (including crats). BITCH GOT OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cyberbob Talk 03:50, 3 May 2010 (BST)
u mad? (ps. that pretty much explains nothing nice excuse) --

04:24, 3 May 2010 (BST)
actually it does as bad decisions on misconduct cases and vb ones where a sysop can't rule due to involvement is better than physically not being able to make any decision at all due to low numbers :) Cyberbob Talk 04:27, 3 May 2010 (BST)
So you COULD imagine what the sysop team would be like without him then (we had that anyway and he WAS here, there were 9 ops around at the time) :) --

04:33, 3 May 2010 (BST)
so then imagine how much worse it would have been with 8! wow that would have been pretty bad Cyberbob Talk 04:55, 3 May 2010 (BST)
Stop making things up to look less wrong, it's quite obvious you accidentally made a u-turn, like it's that much of a big deal.--Thadeous Oakley 16:58, 6 May 2010 (BST)
Against - inactivity bandwagon. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I_!^T 20:24, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against - I think I've heard of him somewhere. --VVV^RPGMBCWS 21:21, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Against - As above. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 12:15, 3 May 2010 (BST)
Against - He's fallen far below the activity threshold required of sysops. I don't want sysops to be constantly stalking the RC, but I do expect them to have a reasonable knowledge of current wiki policy and the community. Extra good sysops harm nobody, but sysops with good intentions but poor knowledge of the current wiki can be quite harmful. That said, General always did a good job when he was here. Linkthewindow Talk 14:21, 3 May 2010 (BST)
Against -- To be honest, I've never once run into The General in the last 3.5 years. Asheets 19:51, 3 May 2010 (BST)
Against - It's time, ol' buddy... there is nothing more in here for us old dinosaus. Just let the ties be cut and join me in the limbo --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:40, 4 May 2010 (BST)
Against - Due to inactivity -- Q. Julius T BH 02:08, 5 May 2010 (BST)
Against - We need active sysops, k? --Jack Kolt ^Talk|Chars 03:39, 6 May 2010 (BST)
Against - WAY past time this turd was flushed.--

| T | BALLS! | 07:01 6 May 2010(UTC)
Against - As above. -- C h e e s e 16:04, 8 May 2010 (BST)