UDWiki talk:Administration/Sysop Archives/Suicidalangel/2008-04-29 Promotion

Discussion

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

Might I ask, seeing as this is not a vote but a discussion to help the bureaucrats make a ruling, what the point of vouching without explanation is? --Grarr 21:00, 1 May 2008 (BST)

It still tells the 'Crat that their support is behind me, for whatever reason. With well established users, sometimes just saying one way or the other makes the difference. I do like it when people say why though. Gives me more to work with.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:16, 1 May 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.--#10 - MONEY ^TMG 21:18, 2 May 2008 (BST)

The above was moved from the bid page because it wasn't discussion on the bid at hand -- boxy ^{talk • i} 08:03 3 May 2008 (BST)

Grim's comment

• 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 prestige, 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 don't 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 issue 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)

We don't 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 issue with another user, but that was settled months ago and never erupted into full scale drama" would have sufficed. This is a double edged sword here. If he/she/it hadn't have addressed this and someone brought up past drama it would have looked like they/them/what was trying to hide it. And are you saying that users that have had drama that was more than "a blip" would never be considered as viable candidates? I think acknowledging it and posting about how it could be avoided in the future or things that were learned from it is a good quality for a candidate. Sysops are not without drama. The way they handle it is what is most important. Look at Axe hack's meltdown when faced with a "blip" of drama and how that caused him to withdraw his bid.

But beyond that I do agree with the stance on inactivity. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 10:25, 7 May 2008 (BST)

1. I figured it was pretty simple. I feel I can help the community more as a Sysops than I can as a regular user.
2. I also assumed that people would look farther than what I say in my bid. I explained the more serious flaws away, while telling a bit about my contributions to the community. If all people do is read through my bid, no background research, next time I'll say I have no flaws at all! :)
3. Did you ever think that whether I got the position or not, I could still use a few tips on what everyone thinks I need to improve on anyway? What better way to ask that then through a promotions bid? Sure, I'm seriously running this time. But I'm also looking on areas to improve upon, and everyone's comments help.
4. I got nothing really to say to that point. I just explained what happened really. I guess I talked a bit much, but it's not that big of a deal if I spent some time explaining it. Is it?
5. I've contributed quite more than that to the community. I've been fairly active in the admin areas, along with general parts of the wiki. I've helped new users out frequently, without WN spamming I might add. Little bit of suggestion maintenance here and there, making a template or two. Basically just helping out here and there. Sure, there's more I could do for the community, but not all of it suits what I think I can/want to do. That, and the fact that this wiki is pretty good as it is. The admin pages, policies and such, are all pretty tight and work pretty good, the suggestions area runs smoothly when used (for the most part), not much is left to be done towards those areas. I'll keep looking and improving things when I see it, and feel that I should. I say should because sometimes others simply can do a better job.

I think I've answered that pretty good. My verbal skills aren't as good as yours (no sarcasm, you're pretty damn good when it comes to getting your point across, responding to questions, etc.), so it may not be as good of an answer that you were looking for (if you were even looking for answers). I thank you for your opinion, and appreciate the time you took in looking at my bid. Really. It's much better than the comments that are just "Vouch" and "Against".-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:04, 5 May 2008 (BST)