UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Vista/2006-07-01 Bureaucrat Promotion

These were the users who put themselves forward to fill the vacant Bureaucrat position left by Odd Starter. This promotion round started 1 June 2006 and ended 1 July 2006 when Kevan promoted Vista.

The General

I have been here since the 26th November 2005, and i've made over 1500 edits, since the last purge, and I have made one peer reviewed suggetion, with several others in the works. I've been hanging around the suggestions page for quite a while, voting on suggestions and discusing policy. I also have a policy change which I hope to suggest soon. I was cycling the suggestions pages, until Grim s took over. I have, naturally, been performing moderator duties such as banning vandals . I have also made several templates.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:55, 1 June 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - I'd vouch him. --Changchad ^{WTF•W!•SGP} 19:04, 1 June 2006 (BST)

• Abstain - Unfortunately, some recent actions by The General lead me to wonder how appropriate it would be for him to be a Bureaucrat. Sometimes he seems reasonable, but at other times he seems hasty to act, or prone to change his mind if there are dissenting voices. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 09:16, 9 June 2006 (BST) Vouch - The General seems quite level-headed and dedicated to the wiki. He would make a good Bureaucrat. --Bob Hammero ^T•W!•U! 19:16, 1 June 2006 (BST)

• Yes, I do sometimes change my mind if there are dissenting voices. This is because they are giving their opinions and they should be taken into account and because moderators are supposed to be a tool of the community.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:17, 24 June 2006 (BST)

• Right, and I think it's a good thing to be able to change your mind given compelling evidence. I'm not necessarily saying that you wouldn't make a good Bureaucrat, I'm just saying that I haven't seen enough evidence to sway me strongly one way or another, hence the abstain. :) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 18:36, 24 June 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - General by name, General by nature. He's harsh (at times), but always fair. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 08:39, 2 June 2006 (BST) Against - His conduct in other places leads me to wonder how trustworthy he is with the extra power. Cyberbob  Talk  12:05, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  • If you are refering to the Amazing drama then that should no longer matter as he is banned from the wiki and there is nothing I can, or will, do about it. Also, what's with the sudden change of opinion when I haven't been on for a week? I'm just wondering what i've done, without editing, that's made you change your mind.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:20, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • I'm referring to the wiki's forum. Think, General. Even you should be able to figure this one out. Cyberbob  Talk  16:56, 25 June 2006 (BST)
      • Ah, yes. You doubt how trustworthy I would be because I was unwilling to make 20 admins on the forum.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:37, 25 June 2006 (BST)
        • No, I think you're untrustworthy because you can't seem to understand the concept of equality. Cyberbob  Talk  17:40, 25 June 2006 (BST)
          • We have equality, you don't have to report to me and neither does anyone else. I gave you almost all powers and was about to give you the power which I believe you are refering to, but you dropped the case.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:45, 25 June 2006 (BST)
            • Equality would have been fully equal powers. Cyber didn't drop the case, so much as he was waiting for you to do your part. There should have been no impetus upon Cyberbob to badger you until you did so. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:28, 25 June 2006 (BST)
              • You dropped the case, you said that it no longer mattered. As it obviously does then I will give you the requested powers, now. --The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:30, 25 June 2006 (BST)
                • New vote at bottom. Cyberbob  Talk  08:21, 26 June 2006 (BST)

• Abstain - I used to consider The General to be an shining example of the best the wiki has to offer, instead I now find myself questioning how objective he is. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 11:37, 2 June 2006 (BST)
  • I refer you to my comment on the vote above you.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:20, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • My vote has been Abstain for a lot longer than Cyberbob240's has been Against. I cannot honestly say that you are neutral enough to be given the mantle of Bureaucrat. While the hints of bias are subtle, perhaps too subtle for you to recognise, I see them nonetheless. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 00:48, 24 June 2006 (BST)
      • I'm not going to argue with you about this, I believe that the business with Amazing is over, but I can understand if you don't trust me.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:53, 24 June 2006 (BST)
        • New vote at bottom. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:14, 26 June 2006 (BST)
          • Does it have to be so fucking hard to get the full story out of him? sigh. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:17, 28 June 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - I'ld have to agree with what everyone has said. I give the General my full support. He works hard for this wiki and deserves this. - Jedaz 11:41, 2 June 2006 (BST)

• Abstain - I'd love to be able to vouch for him, but there are a few areas of bias that I'm unsure of. In particular, his decision in Amazing vs Rasher, Scinfaxi, and GANKBUS, of which he misused his position as arbitrator to clear his character's name and most recently when Xoid banned Amazing and Scinfaxi (incorrectly or not), The General showed bias by unbanning Amazing, but not Scinfaxi. --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 01:29, 4 June 2006 (BST)
  • Not sure how I misused my position as arbitrator to clear my character's name. The reason I didn't unblock Scinfaxi was because he didn't bring forward a misconduct case. Anyway, the ban was about to time out in 5 minutes time.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:08, 4 June 2006 (BST)
    • What? I think you meant to say "Scinfaxi" there, not "Xoid". –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:36, 5 June 2006 (BST)
      • Ah, yes, sorry. *Pretends it never happened*.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:07, 8 June 2006 (BST)

• Against - For now. On the misconduct page a comment he made seems to show that he is willing to circumvent another moderators decision to ban a user (In accordance with the rules) just because that user has a persecution complex and had a fit. --Grim s-^Mod 02:22, 5 June 2006 (BST)

• Abstain - I've got my reasons. ...But they weren't good enough. --Sirens^{T RR} 02:34, 5 June 2006 (BST)

• Against - He's still in the pocket of Amazing. Rasher 03:15, 7 June 2006 (BST)
  • How? It is true that I believe that Amazing isn't as bad as he is made out to be, however I do see how, in your eyes, anyone who sees Amazing as anything other than an idiotic troll is of course completely unsuitable for bureaucratship. (Please note my sarcasm).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:07, 8 June 2006 (BST)

• Against - It's not that I dislike him personally or anything - he seems alright. It's his record of, shall we say, hastiness. In particular, his unilateral reduction of Amazing's sentence from an already lenient 1 year sentence to an insulting 1 week sentence is deeply questionable. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 07:17, 9 June 2006 (BST)
  • I looked at the vandal data and it looked like the next ban level he should have recieved was a week, I therefore changed it. You will notice that other mods agreed with me until they looked into it more closly. No harm was done.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:17, 9 June 2006 (BST)
    • My issue is that you changed the already established ban without looking into it more closely. "I just didn't check to make sure I was right" isn't really much of a defense for someone trying for Bureaucrat status. As the demotion of the last Bureaucrat showed, caution is a virtue at that level of decision-making. Haste is not. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 23:07, 9 June 2006 (BST)
      • I looked at the vandal data page and counted the number of bans he had recieved. I then updated his ban length to match.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:08, 9 June 2006 (BST)
        • The improper reset of his bancount is clearly visible on the exact same part of the exact same page. That you chose to disregard that entirely at best speaks poorly of your judgment. I don't want you as a Bureaucrat if I can't trust your judgment, regardless of your personal character or devotion to the wiki. Period. I'm sorry if I was unclear in conveying that earlier. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 23:20, 9 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - He's seemed objective to me and would make a good burecrat. He's helped out a lot on the Wiki and would do a fine job. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 21:12, 11 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Seems objective. --Zod Rhombus 22:26, 22 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch I don't know much about this business with Amazing, and I don't know The General that well. But a look at his user page paints him as an earnest objective moderator willing to help people. The fact that he was willing to deal with someone maligned, unfairly or not, is a sign of his accessibility. --Jon Pyre 05:30, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Against - Shows some bias and got carried by the (luckily gone) Amazing drama. Hastes sometimes and make wrong decissions, personally can't trust him more power than he already has. --Matthew Fahrenheit 06:11, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Abstain - Amazing, Need I say More? --J Z Delorean 16:43, 23 June 2006 (BST)

• Amazing is banned, so that is no longer an issue.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:23, 24 June 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - Hey, I fought a little with him, but The General is ok. He's tough, but he listens and tries his best. 343 ^U! 18:53, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - I trust the generals judgement completely. His abilaty to change his mind and alter his decissions when confronted with new viewpoints is a mark of maturity and not fickleness. It deserves rewarding and is an example worth following.--Vista 00:08, 24 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - He genuinely did what he thought was best, despite public opinion in the Amazing case, and was willing to accept his decision being overturned when futher evidence came to light. That's what over-view is all about. Being above those emotionally involved, and making decisions on the evidence presented --Boxy 16:54, 25 June 2006 (BST)
• Against - While the taint of The General's bias is quite clear in my eyes, I only felt moved to alter my vote, again, after The General's latest questionable inaction.

  In my opinion, The General's latest move is disgraceful: instead of doing what was right, when it was required, he instead decides to do it after the fact. Even then, it was only when he finally noticed that his bid for bureaucratship has lost the support of other prominent members does he seek to remedy the matter. On top of this, despite his claim to the contrary, the powers are not there. Moderators are supposed to be equal, General. It is a matter of principle. Of course, I'm certain that you will say that you forgot.

  This is one of these situations were you cannot make a right decision, you have already proven through both actions and words that you consider the rest of the moderation team untrustworthy — to the point where you should retain all powers there. Megalomania and paranoia are not acceptable traits in one who is seeking bureaucrat status, regardless of where they have proven themselves to have those traits.

  –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:14, 26 June 2006 (BST)

? what is this about?--Vista 10:09, 26 June 2006 (BST)

Read my old vote, and Cyberbob's old vote. If you're still left in the dark, just holler. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 11:27, 26 June 2006 (BST)

No I read that...As as far as I can make out it's because Cyberbob either isn't a normal moderator or a global one on the wiki forum?--Vista 11:30, 26 June 2006 (BST)

More to do with the fact that some moderators are more powerful than others. We are supposed to have equal power, yet he keeps some from all of the moderators there for fear of abuse. He casts aspersions on all the entire moderatorion team by doing so and places himself above us. Presumptuous and arrogant. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 11:47, 26 June 2006 (BST)

While I must read up on the forum to get the full picture. While I can understand your opinion I find the language rather strong, certianly considering the status of that forum. And the alligations rather vague and I wonder if you didn't choose a rather severe conclusion too quickly. What bias do you think he has for example? megalomania and paranoia are rather extreme medical conditions that I rather doubt are appropriate for this situation. I always found that both you and him were hardworking user both worthy of a lot respect and I find it both counter-productive and strange that one is so at odds with the other.--Vista 12:23, 26 June 2006 (BST)

PS: This goes for all moderators on the forum. Not just me, BTW. Cyberbob  Talk  12:08, 26 June 2006 (BST)

You won't find much on the forum; most of the arguing was done via PM. Cyberbob  Talk  12:24, 26 June 2006 (BST)

I really don't know what you are talking about, the powers are most certainly there. The only ones that you know don't have are the paid services.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:53, 26 June 2006 (BST)

Uh...NO THEY'RE NOT. Cyberbob  Talk  08:22, 27 June 2006 (BST)

YES THEY ARE, I know that for a fact. Look at the modify profile screen and you will see an "Assign member group function". I'll send you a screenshot of the rights alocated to you, if it is really nessecary.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:41, 27 June 2006 (BST)

Nice try. I'll send you a screenshot of my screen when I click on the Admin button. Cyberbob  Talk  18:47, 27 June 2006 (BST)

Here you go. Cyberbob  Talk  18:50, 27 June 2006 (BST)

As far as I now, I can't change that. I have given you the ability to change people member groups. You just can't create new groups.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:52, 27 June 2006 (BST)

You could've saved yourself a lot of angry PMs and spared my blood pressure had you simply said that… 2 weeks ago. I'm inclined to leave my vote as is simply because of how much of a pain it has been getting you to give the full details. But that would be out of spite. Reverting to abstain vote. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:17, 28 June 2006 (BST)

• Against - Well, now that Xoid has pulled the rug out (nice one!), I'm left by myself. I'm a lot more spiteful than Xoid, General. My vote stands for all the goddamn anuerysms you nearly gave me. Cyberbob  Talk  08:22, 26 June 2006 (BST)
• Against - basicly because of some of his decisions during the last days of the Amazing Era, where he said he would unban Amazing after i banned him for a day if he ever had the chance to notice that. --hagnat ^mod 18:21, 26 June 2006 (BST)

• You asked why another moderator didn't step in and correct the situation, if you really were biased. I say I would have stepped in, and you take that as bias? WTF?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:55, 26 June 2006 (BST)

The way you said it looked like you didn't unbanned him because you didn't notice he was banned, and that you would if you had realized that fact. Anyway, a lot on your current behaviour is lacking "The General" I vouched for moderator a few months ago. --hagnat ^mod 00:44, 27 June 2006 (BST)

Could you describe that behaviour? Just interested to know what you dislike about it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 01:09, 27 June 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - I think you did the right thing unbanning Amazing--AZK ^{CMS-Meta ♥ AoG} 01:44, 27 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - You seem to have contributed alot to the urban dead wiki. I don't see anything wrong with you becoming a bureaucrat. --Fighter22 20:31, 28 June 2006 (BST)
• Abstain I just haven't seen enough one way or another to make my own judgement, so I'll leave that to the rest of the wiki community. --ErynSMA 01:15, 29 June 2006 (BST)
• Against - numerous reasons, but for the most part The General has a general bias. -- Rueful 14:56, 30 June 2006 (BST)

• Could you give some reasons for this vote? Is it because I warned you for vandalising one of Amazing's templates?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:12, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Vista

Hi. I've been here on this wiki since october, and in an active role since december. I've made a couple of thousand edits in total. As a mod I've focused myself most on the interpersonal aspects of this wiki. Being active in vandal banning for one, trying to keep everybody happy with each other and keep the drama to a mininum with various successes. Besides my regular tasks as a moderator I've been quite active in the discussions regarding how the wiki should evolve.

Because of my focus on the more personal aspect of the wiki instead of the more technical aspects I'd like to think I would have clear view of peoples individual merits and suitabilaty for promotion to moderator.

• Vouch - I trust his judgememnt. --Sirens^{T RR} 19:42, 4 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - If it's not me, then it should at least be Vista.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:51, 4 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - A reliable and upstanding guy. --Zaruthustra-Mod 05:37, 5 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Vista is a good moderator, with good interpersonal skills. He would make an excellent choice for a bureaucrat. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:43, 5 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - From my experience, I think Vista would make a good Bureaucrat. Reasonable, uninvolved in all of the ongoing drama, and experienced. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 05:47, 5 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Vistas got my vote of confidence. - Jedaz 06:55, 5 June 2006 (BST)
• Against Vouch - Definitely. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 09:35, 6 June 2006 (BST) Some conversations (if you could call them that) that I've been in with Vista have made me wonder if he'd be able to even comprehend the fact that he had been promoted. Cyberbob  Talk  14:43, 28 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - fair and trusthfull. --hagnat ^mod 04:44, 8 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - A big, big vouch for Vista, who has helped me in innumerable ways. PadreRomero 22:02, 22 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Even though we disagree, Vista shows proper wiki decorum and seems to have postiive motivation. --Zod Rhombus 22:30, 22 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Quality editor and a good moderator. Worth consideration. --Karlsbad 23:01, 22 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Vista no make mess up then. be Bureau now. -Banana Bear 02:55, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch -He's a good man.--LCpl Mendoza 03:49, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch I remember him when he used to post suggestions. He always argued his case with reason and logic. Good qualities for a bureaucrat. Come back to the suggestions page Vista! --Jon Pyre 05:25, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - For Zar and The General i can't say much, but Vista is a model to follow for everyone on the Wiki. His unbiased point of view, commitment to community and calm behaviour make him the ideal bureaucrat. --Matthew Fahrenheit 05:55, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Good man, good man. --Swmono ^{talk - W! - SGP} 12:48, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - I Hope That this bump up will be for the better --J Z Delorean 16:36, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Wow, no non-vouch votes yet. Good man, helps people, member of Project Wiki Patrol. Good enough for me. --V2Blast ^{T•P!•C•SR} 18:10, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - So evil that the next Windows operating system was named after him. Need I give a reason for him to bump up? -- 343 ^U! 18:57, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - For no good reason. Well that, and ever since he's decided to go be nicer to people on the suggestion page he's been on the rise and I haven't seen a bad thing from him from then. --McArrowni 02:19, 26 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch On Wheels - Guy's got a good sense of humor, and you need something like that if you're going to be dealing with Bureaucrat-style stuff on a daily basis --John Taggart 23:36, 26 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - He's done nothing wrong, he deserves this promotion.--AZK ^{CMS-Meta ♥ AoG} 01:35, 27 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Level headed guy, friendly and does quite a few things for this wiki. Has been active as well. --Nov ^{W!, M, T} 02:04, 29 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - seems to be extremely active, and to have contributed alot. Seems like he'd do a good job. --ErynSMA 04:01, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Question, shouldn't the voting end? it's been way more then 2 weeks. It seems Vista has won.--AZK ^{CMS-Meta ♥ AoG} 17:51, 29 June 2006 (BST)

It's not a competition, silly. Kevan makes his own judgements on promoting bureaucrats. All these votes are for is to give Kevan a general sounding of public opinion. Cyberbob  Talk  17:58, 29 June 2006 (BST)

The original deadline was about a week ago. But hardly anybody had voted then so we decided to scrap the deadline. There is no need for for a bureaucrat untill July seventh so why not let it continue? the more people who vote on this the better.--Vista 18:29, 29 June 2006 (BST)

The 7^th? Any particular reason? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:38, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Bob Hammero's promotion bid ends then if I have calculated it correctly, and here is no need for any bureaucrat action before that. But I wasn't setting a deadline or something. Merely noting that there isn't any hurry.--Vista 19:09, 29 June 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - Most active candidate in / Policy Discussion / Vandal Banning / Arbitration / User talk / Seems to be the clear choice. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 12:50, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Zaruthustra

What the hell, I'll throw in. I have been here since October 19, 2005, and I've been a sysop since early February. I've made a couple thousand edits among which were several guides, standard pages, policy pages, and suggestions (Necronet!). I'm very active, having been a steady presence here throughout my stay. I've spent a lot of time acquainting myself to policy here, I'm well known, and I've kept my nose clean. Given our growing mod team, a new job, and an upcoming move I'm not the atomic powered super mod I used to be but I'm still lurking on a daily basis. I would definitely be up for the job. I am dropping out of this selection. Recently my 40 hour week has turned into a 50 hour one, I figured out I won't have enough money to buy a new computer, and I'm getting ready for a cross pacific move. I just won't have ready access to a computer, and frankly its a distraction from my studies I probably don't need. So thanks to everybody who supported me on this, but I'm going to leave this in more capable hands. --Zaruthustra-Mod 19:03, 30 June 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - I'll give my reasons tommarow when I'm not pressed for time. --Sirens^{T RR} 05:30, 5 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Level-headed, reasonable, and a good wiki contributer. What more do we need? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 05:40, 5 June 2006 (BST)
• Abstain - I haven't seen you about much lately, as such I'm uncertain about vouching for you. You meet the requirements, but I'm uncertain of how involved you are planning to be. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:46, 5 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - All hail Zar. --Grim s-^Mod 09:31, 6 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Against - I just can't trust you after that drama with Amazing. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 09:34, 6 June 2006 (BST) Hell, why not? He's a nice guy. Cyberbob  Talk  07:54, 26 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - I, for one, Welcome our new Zaruthustra Overlord. -- Tirion529 16:20, 6 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - From the contributions i've seen already I cant think of anyone better for the role Mortificant 16:21, 6 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Always for a sensible, level-headed moderator. --Pooky Romero 16:24, 6 June 2006 (BST)
• Abstain -Against I believe that you would be an excellent bureaucrat. However, you do not appear to have been fulfilling any of your moderation duties recently and that leads me to believe that you aren't active enough for bureaucratship.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:09, 8 June 2006 (BST)--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:09, 8 June 2006 (BST)

I'm always here lurking. Its just recently I've also been working 40 hours a week, studying Chinese, and otherwise living life. So I've been leaving most non-emergency mod work to the others. This wouldn't interfere with bureaucratic work since its mostly quick and orderly, 5 minute jobs that require nothing more than daily attention. I have precious little UD time and theres just no reason for me to sacrifice it on modding duties right now when theres 20 other sysops happy to handle it. --Zaruthustra-Mod 02:12, 9 June 2006 (BST)

你好�?你好�?�？ Cyberbob  Talk  09:27, 9 June 2006 (BST)

我累死了 :P --Zaruthustra-Mod 18:39, 9 June 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - Dangit, people already took the tags I was gonna use. Guess I'll have to settle for saying that Zar's an evenhanded, intelligent mod, and he'd be a solid choice for promotion. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 09:24, 9 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Remember WCDZ? thats reason enough. -Banana Bear 02:54, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch Might as well take your leadership of the WCDZ to the next level. Joking aside, I think he will take his responsibility seriously and do a good job. --Jon Pyre 05:26, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Against - If the level of responsibility of someone's position on this wiki were proportional to the level of absence on it that this person shows (being Kevan the big guy on the wiki and the most absent too) i wuold vouch for you. Don't missunderstand, i even like the little of you i have seen, but as i said, it was little. --Matthew Fahrenheit 06:03, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch What I've seen of you has been fair and balanced, and as such I'm okay with you being a buerecrat. HamsterNinja 06:15, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch You Deserve It --J Z Delorean 16:45, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - People live life. Sometimes it hits them hard. I am sick of these decent hardworking people being penalized for not having time, because life is being harsh. Zaruthustra, you have been a fair mod, and I expect that you will do your best, especially if you get more time. - 343 ^U! 19:02, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch- It looks like you could handle things pritty well. I just hope you can later in life take the time to do things like this. Lt Potter 22:00 hours, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Zar is made of win.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 07:52, 26 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Meh, I could come up with worse scenarios than this. Including a zombie apocalypse.--William Raker 08:57, 26 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - What can I say that hasn't been said? - CthulhuFhtagn 09:00, 26 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - I have seen some of your edit, and find your work laudable. You have earned my vote - hyuutake 13:05, 27 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch -Much missed as a moderator, it would be very good if he was to return to active duty. He would make a fine Bureaucrat.--Vista 13:05, 28 June 2006 (BST)

'STER

Why not. I've been around since...Well, I honestly don't remember, but it was a while. i've been a mod/sysop since October of last year. I helped police the Suggestions revamp, and since then I've just been kicking around and generally trying to make the wiki a better place. I do a lot of speedeletions, and some vandal bans when I get to them first. I thought up and made the vandal data page. I also brought the idea of the Lexicon to the wiki and have been fairly active in it. There have been some periods where I wasn't really as active as I ought to have been when school pressed in or I lost 'net access, but now with summer vacation upon us I'll have a lot more free time for UD in general and the wiki specifically.

• Vouch - Good guy. He'd be a good choice for Bureaucrat status. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 05:29, 25 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Calm and collected. A good choice. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:31, 25 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Reasonable and calm. He'd be a good Bureaucrat. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 05:37, 25 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Yep. Definitely. Cyberbob  Talk  07:38, 25 June 2006 (BST)
• Abstain - Not sure, he's been inactive for awhile and i'd like to see more activity before he's made a bureaucrat. This nomination is also after the deadline. Still, nice guy and and excellent moderator.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:20, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  • We've had a serious lack of voter turnout until the last few days, as well as a lack of publicity for this. I say "scrap that rule". –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:32, 25 June 2006 (BST)
    • I would agree, I only put it in place to prevent this voting from going on forever (otherwise we have to wait for all the moderators to put themselves forward).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:41, 25 June 2006 (BST)
      • Then the anwser is simple. voting ends for all sysops at the same time. Namely when Kevan remembers this or gets prod by one of the other users. usually most voting is done within the first few days of the canidate proclaiming himself so it isn't as big a disadvantage as it would seem.--Vista 13:04, 25 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - yeah, 'ster it up (hahahahaaha). -Banana Bear 17:40, 25 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - A fine mod. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:13, 25 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - This hasn't been done yet? --McArrowni 02:17, 26 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Very active within the Outbreak lexicon. A nice chap. juicebarjoseph 16:02, 26 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - I Love the Outbreak Lexicon stuff ^_^ --AZK ^{CMS-Meta ♥ AoG} 01:46, 27 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch - Very active!! - Nicks 00:20, 28 June 2006 (BST)
• Vouch -Much missed as a moderator, it would be very good if he was to return to active duty. He would make a fine Bureaucrat.--Vista 13:04, 28 June 2006 (BST)
• Against - As with Zarathustra, i think that moderators must show a big level of commitment to the Wiki, and that level should be surpassed by bureaucrats. We dont need moderators and bureaucrats to stock in numbers, we need them to shine with quality. --Matthew Fahrenheit 21:26, 28 June 2006 (BST)