UDWiki:Administration/Promotions

Shortcut:
A/PM

Candidates still requiring vouches

There are no candidates still requiring vouches.

cookies

can i has some ? i want to ban animesucks for a month or so. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 03:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Candidates currently under community discussion

Cheese

Righty ho, I've been pottering about as one of the masses again for a while and I wouldn't mind getting my old sysop buttons back. For those who don't know much about me, I joined the wiki waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2006 and became a sysop in 2008 before getting demoted about 2 and a half weeks ago. In my most recent re-evaluation the main sticking point for most people was my lack of activity in my final term which I have attempted to address and I'm pretty confident that it won't be repeated thanks to a pretty generous uni timetable this semester.

I usually spend my time doing janitor-y tasks like image and page categorising and I've been taking a stab at clearing through the Short Pages list to try and clear away redundant pages. I've made just slightly less than 500 edits in the last 6 months however about 450 of these have been in the last month and a half so I have been pretty active since I came back to the wiki.

I hope you guys would like me back as I've enjoyed serving the community for the past few years and I will continue to do so to the best of my abilities. =) -- Cheese 16:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Vouch - But I see you running in to opposition given the short space of time since your demotion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch Need more veterans on the syop team--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Question Any particular event motivated the decision at this time? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  I wouldn't so much say event but the lack of the ability to move pages is starting to make me a bit sad. -- Cheese 17:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  Ahhh. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  I assume you were thinking of this? -- Cheese 17:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  That, a raft of promotions, discussions on suburb listings, the suburb map, discussion about provisional sysop privileges, the largest wiki news section in history etc, etc, etc. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• As Yonnua. It's barely been 2 weeks. I would have nominated you myself after a while since you're doing great work, but this screams "too soon" to me. Meh, I'll think it over. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  Fuck it, I'm sure he'll stay active this time. Other than poor timing, great candidate that I would even consider for crat material (which he once was). Vouch --Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Against. Simply for re-appearing far too early for me to be able to make an educated guess on your activity level in the future. Just keep up being helpful and especially active for a couple of more months, and I'd gladly vouch for you just on the grounds of your past strong janitorial contributions. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - I voted to keep you during A/RE so yeah. IMO Cheese deserves his buttons. ~ 17:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch, just so long as you're more active. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Weak against - I haven't heard bad things about your sysop time, so that's not really a problem for me. The question I have is how long are you able to stay active? You said yourself that you have a good timetable this semester, but what happens next semester? You continue your work or become inactive again? You get demoted for low activity and a few semesters later when you have another good timetable you want to become sysop again? I say weak against now, but if you can convince me you can remain active as sysop for a decent amount of time I'm willing to make a vouch for you. --Efighter 20:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  This semester lasts until the end of May with a 3 week break some point towards the end of March. I then don't start back until end of September. That's the start of my honours year so I don't know how that's going to look yet but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Suffice to say that I'm going to be pretty active for at least the next 7 months and quite possibly beyond that. -- Cheese 20:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Vouch - That looks good, 7 months is a decent time you can stay active. Other complaints I heard are all about you wanting to become sysop again so quickly after losing the job. But if you truly can stay active for 7 months that shouldn't be a problem for my vouch. --Efighter 07:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Against - It's just too soon after your failed re-evaluation to be trying for another promotion. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 20:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Super Mother-Fucking Vouch - Better than Yon--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  I happily agree.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch - There was nothing wrong in the first place. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Against - User has shown negligible activity since August, and insists that he be reelected despite the community refusing him less than a month ago. Has not recently shown interest in anything but his rank. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 23:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  The only major problem the community had was with my activity which I have done my utmost to address. Aside from that that everyone was generally happy with my presence. As for the "negligible" activity, I've been way more active that you have over the past month and a bit, so fuck off. -- Cheese 02:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• We were just having a hypothetical discussion on passing potential ops under the guarantee they would undergo an A/RE three months after their initial promotion, and I said it was a bad idea. This is probably one of the situations where it may actually be apt- situations related to activity. I definitely want to vouch Cheese because the work he's done is the best work we've seen a user do in probably years, and I know he's a good op when he's around, but 2 week is still much too soon IMO, against. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Against -- and I also put forward a motion to put a time constraint on reappeals. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 12:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• weak against too soon, seems this like is a vanity bid more than anything.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Vouch Should never have lost the buttons as his inactivity wasn't causing a problem (not always the case with inactive sysops) Personally I think he is amongst the best Sysops this place has ever had... Well apart from Grim_s --Honestmistake 17:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Axe Hack

• Axe Hack (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | vndl data)

Since his last bid, he has strongly shaped up in the janitorial department. It's now regularly him who does the unloved task of cycling the admin pages each month. (A task that would also run much smoother if he had himself the necessary Protection buttons to deal with the scheduled stuff.)

His other big new janitorial contribution is the project Very Funny Or Not, which tackles one of the most badly neglected backwaters of the wiki and also shows his leadership ambitions.

Apart of that, he is still going strong as a community member and event organizer. Having him on the op team would be a boon, as he offers an unique perspective, while still proving that he's ready to get his hands dirty when necessary.

I strongly hope he will accept this one. -- Spiderzed▋ 04:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The first thing I wanna see on the net when I wake up and have a cup of joe nearby is not something that will make me spit out my cup of joe because it caught me slightly off guard because somebody said not to expect a nomination until the weekend. Now that my spill has been cleaned...Like the previous time, I'm going to wait a week before I decide if I wish to accept this or not. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, on second thought, I decided to go a bit earlier. There already four days between the closing times of the two latest bids. At worst, the crats need a couple of days more due to workload (which would just be the same result as holding back the bid.) -- Spiderzed▋ 15:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch. See the bid text for my reasons. -- Spiderzed▋ 04:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - I was very resolute in my stance against Axe in his last bid, but he immediately stepped up and started doing beautiful things around the wiki, and it was then I knew that he could be a good op. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Weak against - losing confidence in his decision making skills if he can't even decide about accepting bid. otherwise as boxy, regretfully enough. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  Well, if you must know, I had made a decision two days into the bid. I just don't think it's wise to jump the gun and present my decision to the community early into the bid. However, DDR (and any others who are wondering), if you really really want to know, fine. I won't leave the wiki in any more suspense. I, Axe Hack, will accept Spiderzed's nomination. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 06:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch - i've been playing with the little gook for like forever.. sure why not. anyone but thad.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 04:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Vouch - Massively active, makes good edits all around and stays perfectly neutral when necessary. If he accepts he would be a major asset to the sysop team.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Question Have you any experience of sysop/adminship on other wikis? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  There was the Dealt in Lead wiki before it went offline, and I am currently an Op on the newer Battle Row wiki. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Why ask a question you know the answer to :| -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Just because I know something, doesn't mean everyone else does as well. And I always ask questions. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  Dorothy Dixer -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:11 6 February 2011 (BST)

• Vouch Will be nice to see how his sense of humour works as sysop. --Honestmistake 15:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch Has proved competance over on the battle row wiki--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Vouch Weak, only because I don't know the candidate as well as I should... Asheets 16:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Abstain - For the same reason I abstained on Spidey's bid. Will make decision after you accept your bid. You could expect a vouch, though. ~ 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Alright I guess its been long enough now that I can cast a real vote. You still don't seem to thrilled about the idea of possibly becoming an op but I may just be reading into it wrong. Even if that is the case, I think you'll come around. I can tell you are one to really think before offering your opinions on things and I think that's a good quality. You've made lots of good contibutions to the wiki, technically savvy, show desire to improve the wiki (funny...or not project), not afraid of janitorial work. So I vouch for Axe Hack. Make this man an op. ~ 08:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - Go get 'em tiger.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Mega Vouch Unsure - You mean he wasn't a sysop already?! --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 10:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Wait, you knew you were getting nominated and now you think you can wait a week to see if you want to accept the position of being nominated?

  QUESTION: If elected, would you wait a week for every decision you make even if you knew you should probably make the decision beforehand? --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 23:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  That depends on the situation at hand. If the situation is a pretty big deal, I'll spend two days at most looking over and reviewing the facts before making my decision. If a situation is minor, I see no reason why not to prolong my decision to a week at most. Another factor would also be if there are any time limits as to when a decision needs to be made, such as this nomination. Should there be a time limit that (in my opinion) extends at least 3-4 days, I see no reason why 50%-75% of that time cannot be used to think things over carefully (as such is this nomination bid) or (looking outside of this bid) to review the facts and pin everything down to the last detail. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  Sure, why not. He was still going to get my vouch anyway. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 17:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against - wont commit to running or not... and has a mega-spammy sig that I see enough of already -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:00 5 February 2011 (BST)
• Against - Was leaning on to vouching, but his lack of decision making skills told me otherwise. Sorry Axe, but you haven't convinced me with tangling about accepting this bid yes or not, which you did even more than Spider. And I have my doubt whether this insecurity is a one-time only, I don't deem you capable yet of making important decisions, which you will have to make to as an op. You shouldn't be so afraid of a negative outcome. You know what would convince me outright? Come back in a few months (1, 2) and self-nominate.--Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  The bid's already accepted. See the response under DDR's opinion. And also, I don't believe in self-nomination. It just makes the self-nominator look...desperate-ish. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  I know that it has been accepted, I just don't agree how. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch coz AH rulez!!!!! --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 10:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Fulfills all the criteria (maybe a little discrepancy in the desire to be sysop thing, but accepting the bid signifies at least some desire, doesn't it?) -- †  talk ? f.u. 13:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Question How do you feel you have dealt with/ would deal with drama? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  I don't get involved in drama as often as some of the other folks on this wiki. I do, however, check to see what the commotion is about, and if I have any objections, I will speak up. If and when I do speak up, there's only one thing I look for. Facts. Facts are very important when it comes to voicing my opinion in any commotion, if I absolutely must get involved. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Question As the recent goatse VB case has split the team in their vote and turned quite heated, what would your ruling have been if you had been an op at that time? -- Spiderzed▋ 15:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  Umm, it was 6-3, that isn't exactly "splitting the team".--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  It's hardly unanimous dear fellow. (Twirls Moustache). --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  Personally, I disagree with the verdict completely. I mean, Wikipedia has their fair share of pornographic images. In fact, in the case of Mark D. Stroyer vs Gage, Gage himself has even listed a few Wikipedia links that contained sexual contents. Hell, if we look at Michelangelo's infamous "David", it even has sexual content, especially since there are replicas of it in public places. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Recently Concluded Bids

Spiderzed

Archived as successful here, -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thadeous Oakley

Archived at here as successful -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For older concluded bids, see Promotion Candidacies.

Archived Promotions

• Complete list of Promotion Requests
• Successful Promotions Candidacies
• Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies
• Unaccepted Nominations
• Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies