UDWiki:Administration/Promotions
This page is for users to request System Operator status. The act of user promotion is restricted to those with bureaucrat status, and as such users will need to request user promotion here. System Operators and Bureaucrats cannot assign promotions unless the request has gone through this page.
Guidelines for System Operator Requests
Users who wish to request System Operator status (and users who wish to nominate other users for System Operator status) should note that before they can be considered the following guidelines should be met by the candidate:
- Significant time within the community.
- We define this as at least 6 months since the candidate's first edit.
- Note: looking in a User's User contributions might give false results for this criterion, as the edit history is periodically purged on this wiki.
- Significant activity within the community.
- We define this as at least 250 edits in the past six months under the candidate's name.
- Note: looking in a User's User contributions might give false results for this criterion, as the edit history is periodically purged on this wiki.
- Prior interest in maintaining the community.
- We define this as clear evidence that the candidate is already performing maintenance tasks and taking leadership roles on the wiki.
- Desire to become a System Operator.
- We define this simply as indicating in the candidate's request their desire for the position (Note that if a person is nominated by another user, the candidate in question should note their acceptance of the nomination).
If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain amount of leeway may be given with the other criteria.
Once the candidate satisfies these guidelines, the user is then subject to a community discussion. All users are asked to comment on the candidate in question, ask questions of the candidate, and discuss the candidate's suitability for becoming a System Operator. This is not a vote. It is instead merely a request for comments from the wiki community. This will continue for two weeks to allow all users an opportunity to voice their opinion regarding a candidate's qualifications for promotion. After two weeks, the Bureaucrats are responsible for announcing their decision within a reasonably short period of time. Users may continue to add their thoughts until the Bureaucrats announce their decision. The current amount of System Operators running should not influence your decisions when voicing your opinion.
Once the two weeks are up, the Bureaucrats will review the community discussion and make a decision based upon it. The user will be notified of the status of their request, and will be promoted should it appear that the community is willing to accept them as a System Operator.
Example Application
Example User
- Example User (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | vndl data)
I've been around 3 months, and I've made to date 550 edits. As you can see [link here] and [link here], I've been in the leadership role attempting to create a new format for this page. I'd very much like to become a System Operator.
- Vouch - I am willing to vouch for this user. -- Voucher 03:41, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Against - Example User, I haven't seen any evidence of your work on the wiki. --Some user 19:01, 25 July 2006 (BST)
- Vouch - Example User is the most active guy here. --Another user 19:01, 25 July 2006 (BST)
- Abstain - I'm just not sure, but I don't want to say why for some reason. --Some other user 19:01, 25 July 2006 (BST)
- Question - I just want to know what you think about this subject? --Yet another user 21:26, 4 April 2013 (BST)
Candidates Currently Under Community Discussion
Generaloberst
Hello. I would like to apply for the position of system operator. Please take your time to read my motivations and consider voting for me.
On this wiki, I am known as Generaloberst. I'm almost 20 years old and an ethnic Dutchman. I'm a person with a very wide interest in the world. While most people are only interested in one thing, or a small range of things, practically everything in this world interests me. Art, language, politics, medicine, computers, sports, nothing escapes my curiousity. I am rational, inquisitive, evaluative and very free-thinking. Also, I'm always calm and neutral. My IQ is 130.
I graduated high school on many beta subjects (chems, psychics, economics, math, etc). The alpha subjects I have learned through selective, unremmiting self-study; yes, I actually do speak 8 languages (within 3 alphabets). Furthermore, I have knowledge of the computer languages HTML and C++, which I've worked with for a gamestudio on professional level. Right now I'm in university (I'm studying management). Though there is enough time left for me to be active ingame (I've been active since 2009) and on this wiki.
Should you vouch, you vouch for neutrality, activity and my general knowledge. This wiki needs my input as a sysop. User:Generaloberst/s 23:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Against I can't say I've seen anything you've done that would make you a good sysop. --Bad Attitude Kirsty K.C. R&D d.b.a. Org XIII 23:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Against times ten - You've done absolutely nothing for the benefit of this wiki in the long term. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- What I've done so far is deleting outdated items and update building statuses. Also, I'm the person that was behind the plan to update the dangermap reports. User:Generaloberst/s 23:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Links to these would help, all I see looking through 500 edits was you updating buildings you ruined and complaining about ghost towns. --Bad Attitude Kirsty K.C. R&D d.b.a. Org XIII 23:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Suburb danger levels, also the open discussion. User:Generaloberst/s 0:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I covered the first one in "complaining about ghost towns." And I didn't see a single edit by you on your second link or the talk page. --Bad Attitude Kirsty K.C. R&D d.b.a. Org XIII 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's the open discussion for the same plan, that's what I ment. I had done my say in the relevant discussion, which is also linked to on that page. User:Generaloberst/s 00:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a bit disappointed that that's what you're citing, since the discussions are stalled, you haven't moved them forward in months, and nothing has come of them. Compare the stuff you're citing with a similar project like the revamp of the barricade plan template from a few years back. Similar issues, but it had a few people driving it forward and doing actual work to make sure it happened. It finished in just a week or two too. Take your discussion through to completion and you'll have something that might be worth citing. For now, what you're citing as an accomplishment is actually a failed project, and the fact that you didn't realize that reflects poorly on you. —Aichon— 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's the open discussion for the same plan, that's what I ment. I had done my say in the relevant discussion, which is also linked to on that page. User:Generaloberst/s 00:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I covered the first one in "complaining about ghost towns." And I didn't see a single edit by you on your second link or the talk page. --Bad Attitude Kirsty K.C. R&D d.b.a. Org XIII 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Suburb danger levels, also the open discussion. User:Generaloberst/s 0:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Links to these would help, all I see looking through 500 edits was you updating buildings you ruined and complaining about ghost towns. --Bad Attitude Kirsty K.C. R&D d.b.a. Org XIII 23:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- What I've done so far is deleting outdated items and update building statuses. Also, I'm the person that was behind the plan to update the dangermap reports. User:Generaloberst/s 23:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Against --Papa Moloch 00:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Against - To be honest, I think you're a nice enough guy and I like you on a personal level, so I don't want this to feel like a personal attack, because that is not my intent. Even so, you're simply not sysop material, and I'd like to detail my thoughts for why.
Your intro text alone demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what the wiki needs in a sysop. That you're going into detail over topics such as your ethnicity, IQ, and fields of interest rather than discussing your stances on wiki matters in that much detail should be red flags for anyone (over 2/3 of your intro was about your background, rather than the wiki). In fact, I'm having trouble finding much of anything relevant or beneficial for you in your intro. Many of us have higher IQs (myself included), many of us speak multiple languages, many of us know HTML and C++ (in fact, by the time I was 18, I had already dabbled in over three dozen computer languages and worked in the space industry), many of us have completed wiki projects under our belts (the only one you cited has so far been a failure), and your claim to support neutrality is vague at best.
Long story short, I have yet to see you cite a single valid reason for why you'd be a good sysop, and the fact that you apparently thought the things you were citing were valid reasons has given me cause to doubt your judgment in wiki matters. —Aichon— 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC) - If I'm honest, I think that you'd just use the position to rule on vandalism cases against people you don't like. In my opinion, putting aside whether or not that's bad (it's bad) it also demonstrates a misunderstanding of the sysop role. Being a sysop means working as part of a team and co-operating with people to reach an acceptable compromise, while at the same time putting in a lot of time for consistent janitorial work. At the moment, I don't think you've demonstrated the necessary teamwork skills, nor have you shown consistency. You tend to have small bursts of activity followed by periods of inactivity. I also don't ever think that having a wiki-user who's so focused on their group as a sysop can be a good thing. Looking at the history of the wiki there have been a few notable examples, but I won't go in to names.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 01:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Vouch - Clearly qualified... --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS
LOE ZHU | Яezzens 01:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Shortround
- Shortround (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | vndl data)
Hey guys, I’ve decided to put myself up for the position of system operator. I’d like to take this chance to tell you what I’d do if I was promoted and also get the chance for ever valuable community feedback.
About Shortround
I’ve been around for about 3/4 months and I’ve been trying to help out wherever I can. I deal with a large proportion of bots that come through and also do some other things like cycling of various pages and sorting through suburb news and danger-reports where necessary. Basically just janitorial stuff, although I’ve expressed opinions on things where I think it’s been necessary and where I’ve had a valuable opinion to share. My resume isn’t quite as impressive as some of the current or past sysops here, but in the current climate I think that I’m a viable candidate for sysop, which really gets to the issue of what I’d be doing.
What would I do as Sysop?
As sysop I’d handle all of the meaningless janitorial stuff I’ve already been doing, but with the capacity to actually go through with it. We’ve had a couple of instances recently where bots haven’t been handled immediately and there have been a few move requests and other tasks which have been left standing for a while. If you make me sysop I’ll deal with those things. Why? Because my job is boring and rarely requires me to be doing things so I often browse the web and mess about. This could be a way to change that in to productivity. I’d also fulfil the other functions of a system operator when necessary, but at the moment we don’t have that much to do in the non-janitorial areas of the wiki such as vandal banning. Even while there, I’d take a detached janitorial outlook on the cases wherever I could.
Why would I be a good sysop?
Well, this is really an issue of personal opinion. I know some people like dynamic system operators who make bold statements and do daring stuff, but I think there’s a solid case for the other kind, who enjoy themselves but at the same time deal with a large body of work and have the experience needed to keep the wiki ticking over. That’s the kind of sysop I would want to be. If you think that’s what you would want in a system operator, then vouch for me. If not, you probably shouldn’t. :)
Shortround }.{ My Contributions 19:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Vouch but no promotion Only because we've, as you noted in the edit summary, got so absolutely little going on. Never a good time to be promoting people when there's nothing going on. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 20:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Does this mean only that there is a smaller usefulness to it, rather than if more was going on, a larger one? So what's the problem? Only relatively less to do. (We make the same criticism of the objection, "there are too many sysops".)-- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. We don't need to be giving people access to private information when it's not needed and when we have overpromoted it's always served only to bog down the processing of what tasks there are to do at that time. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 00:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I mean that neither the absence of much to do nor the presence of too many sysops has to do with merits of a would-be sysop. I'm not sure what the connection between "not much to do" and "access to private information" is given that when we asses giving someone "access to private information" we are talking about their merit or trustworthiness. And I have never remembered anything being bogged down by having too many sysops and/or too little to do. I think people just end up not doing much, which makes having some too-large number of sysops only not very useful, not detrimental. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. We don't need to be giving people access to private information when it's not needed and when we have overpromoted it's always served only to bog down the processing of what tasks there are to do at that time. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 00:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Does this mean only that there is a smaller usefulness to it, rather than if more was going on, a larger one? So what's the problem? Only relatively less to do. (We make the same criticism of the objection, "there are too many sysops".)-- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Abstain I've never dealt with you at all, so I can't say one way or the other. But you seem ok and make an interesting case for sysopship. But Karek is right -- there isn't anything going on worthy of considering much of anybody for promotion. There is plenty of janitorial work that doesn't need special access to do. Personally, I think that if you have that much slack time at work that you're considering this, I'd recommend a good online grad school instead. Asheets 20:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Abstain - There is some promise in your actions, but we haven't seen much of you, especially given how slowly the place runs right now. Give it a few more months before you re-apply. -- Spiderzed█ 21:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Against ...i saw this coming when he immediately started kissing ass / sucking up / brown-nosing. →Son of Sin← 22:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've not been ass-kissing bro. Just because I do what's best for the wiki and stuff doesn't mean I'm asskissing.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Abstain - While I've not been editing, I've been lurking sufficiently in the background to know that we've got more sysops than we actually need at the moment. I doubt it's going to pick up much, the game as a whole has been winding down for the past couple of years, but it may do so towards the summer. Try again round about then. -- Cheese 22:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Against - He's done well so far, but I think he needs a bit more experience before being promoted. --AORDMOPRI ! T 22:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- To be fair, I've got experience from (French) wikipedia but mostly only admins stuff and also it's obviously a very different beast to UDwiki. Experience isn't really an issue in my eyes. I see the "too many sysops" argument as being far more compelling for the time being.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Vouch - I think, at this point, a promotion would allow you to continue developing yourself as a member of this wiki. I trust that you, should you be promoted, will be neutral and will continue to be active. It's what this wiki needs. As a last input, I have a question to Spiderzed. Why do you vote "Against - too little activity" when Revenant was put up for re-evaluation, and now abstain, "given how slowly the place runs right now"? That is contradictory. Maybe you have a double agenda? User:Generaloberst/s 22:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Vouch, but as Karek. The way this wiki is now, we're probably better off demoting a few people, mainly the least active ones. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with that but that isn't mutually exclusive with promoting new system operators to breath life in to what is at the moment a very stagnant team. If there wasn't work that needed doing, I wouldn't be running.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Despite my mostly lurking these days, I've already seen your name pop up in a few different places, and always in a helpful and intelligent manner. I was actually hoping that, assuming you continued that trend, you'd apply for sysop at some point. Unfortunately, I'm leaning towards thinking that this is just a tad bit too soon, and I'd like to have had the chance to see you in a few more situations. Re-apply in a few months, keep up the good work in the meantime, and you should be a shoe-in for the job. —Aichon— 00:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- The reasons that I applied now rather than at a point down the line are that a) I'm drunk and b) I don't really think I'll be doing anything vastly different from how I do now. I already have a strong conceptual and technical grasp of how the wiki works, I have experience with most of the tools and I would mostly stick to janitorial work of the same nature as what I've been doing. From that standpoint, waiting 2 or 3 more months before applying gives no additional benefit and when we have move requests and such having to wait a few days to be carried out, there's not really a case to be made that there are too many sysops. The point where there are too many sysops is when there are constantly 2+ online and everything is done immediately as soon as it is requested (see: English Wikipedia). We are nowhere that level of need at the moment.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I actually think that the "too many sysops" is an invalid reason to reject a candidate (side note: I thought there used to be some text around here saying that explicitly, but I can't seem to find it). My "too soon" vote is not because of the amount of work around here being low, or the fact that we do have too many sysops, but rather because of my desire to see you get a little more experience around the wiki community. If the 'crats decide to promote you, I'd be cool with it, but I'm leaning slightly in the other direction at the moment. I understand there may be little benefit in making you wait, but I'd like that little benefit anyway. —Aichon— 01:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I absolutely see where you're coming from, but realistically I don't see what I'll be doing differently in say 2/3 months time. The only thing that I don't have a really solid understanding of at the moment is case precedents for vandalism and (some) misconduct and realistically, that won't change any time soon because of the low influx of cases and the fact that the ones that we get are relatively simplistic. I can't see any way that I'll be a more helpful member of the community in a couple of months, but obviously there could be something somewhat large that I'm missing here.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 01:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I actually think that the "too many sysops" is an invalid reason to reject a candidate (side note: I thought there used to be some text around here saying that explicitly, but I can't seem to find it). My "too soon" vote is not because of the amount of work around here being low, or the fact that we do have too many sysops, but rather because of my desire to see you get a little more experience around the wiki community. If the 'crats decide to promote you, I'd be cool with it, but I'm leaning slightly in the other direction at the moment. I understand there may be little benefit in making you wait, but I'd like that little benefit anyway. —Aichon— 01:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- The reasons that I applied now rather than at a point down the line are that a) I'm drunk and b) I don't really think I'll be doing anything vastly different from how I do now. I already have a strong conceptual and technical grasp of how the wiki works, I have experience with most of the tools and I would mostly stick to janitorial work of the same nature as what I've been doing. From that standpoint, waiting 2 or 3 more months before applying gives no additional benefit and when we have move requests and such having to wait a few days to be carried out, there's not really a case to be made that there are too many sysops. The point where there are too many sysops is when there are constantly 2+ online and everything is done immediately as soon as it is requested (see: English Wikipedia). We are nowhere that level of need at the moment.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Super Vouch Sysops for all!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens 01:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Recently Concluded Bids
For older concluded bids, see Promotion Candidacies.
