UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(214 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
* [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions/Archive2|Archive2]] - Feb - Oct 2007
* [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions/Archive2|Archive2]] - Feb - Oct 2007
* [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions/Archive3|Archive3]] - Oct 2007 - Apr 2008
* [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions/Archive3|Archive3]] - Oct 2007 - Apr 2008
* [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions/Archive4|Archive4]] - Apr 2008 - May 2010


=Discussion=
=Discussion=
Moved or continued from the main page. New stuff goes on the bottom.


==Tallies==
I think we should agree not to post those running tallies, given that sysop promotions are '''not''' votes, but rather requests for users opinions/reasons for support or not. The tallies give the impression that it's a vote <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 10:23 24 July 2008 (BST)</small>
:Not to mention that they are damn annoying.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 10:26, 24 July 2008 (BST)
::agreed. although it means i have nowhere to use my new found skill of 5 tildes....--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:28, 24 July 2008 (BST)
:::I agree aswell. It should be done asap... <u><big>[[User:DanceDanceRevolution|<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">D</span>]]</big><nowiki>ance</nowiki><big>[[User Talk:DanceDanceRevolution|<span style="color:lime;font-weight:bold">D</span>]]</big><nowiki>ance</nowiki><big>[[User:DanceDanceRevolution/media|<span style="color:Aqua;font-weight:bold">R</span>]]</big>evolution</u> 13:29, 24 July 2008 (BST)
::::OK, I'm moving the tally from the current bid here <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 13:11 26 July 2008 (BST)</small>
:::::The bid relevant portion has been moved to the bid archive.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:55, 31 July 2008 (BST)




==Individual Pages per Promotion==
==[[User:Axe Hack]]==
Wouldnt it be better to deal with each promotion bid in an individual page, like we discuss new policies and arbitration cases on their own pages ? The promotion are gonna to be archived in an individual page in the end, and that way we can keep any discussion related to that case in it's own talk page. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 14:20, 22 April 2008 (BST)
OK, guys...last time I checked, the nomination does not get moved under Community Discussion until the nominee accepts the bid. I have not accept the bid yet, and have been moving it back to Still Requiring Vouches as the bid has not yet been accepted.  I'm not moving it back up a third time now... -_- --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 00:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
:As long as they all link from the current page in the same manner as suggestions do then it sounds like a good idea to me. It would keep things neater, thing is though is it worth making a change for something that isn't exactly an everyday event? --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:59, 22 April 2008 (BST)
:That's true, I completely forgot about the accepting bit. Sorry! -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 04:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
::I was thinking about something like what i made in the arbitration page. The user requesting a promotion uses a template stuff, with a link to it's bid, the date he asked for the promotion and when it's supposed to be over (14 days since its beginning) and the status of the bid (open, succesful, unsuccesful, withdraw, etc)... then in the individual page we could have something like in the suggestions, with a place reserved for the user to state his reasons to be promoted, a place for people to vouch him, and a section explaining how promotion works (the thing about it not being a vote, but a discussion on the merits of a user to be promoted) and the duties of a sysop. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 15:07, 22 April 2008 (BST)
:Piss, or get off the pot <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 05:19 4 February 2011 (BST)</span></small>
:::I'd say it can't hurt to try it out.  Makes the page less spammy with multiple bids.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 15:59, 22 April 2008 (BST)
::::Given that there are usually only a handful of promotions at a time, is this necessary?  Still, having separate promotion pages would entail separate promotion talk pages, which is where the real editing mess is. Also, this would definitely make archiving easier. --[[User:Kid sinister|Kid sinister]] 16:35, 22 April 2008 (BST)
:::::Yeah, kid sinister has the right idea: this isn't so much good because it splits up the main page but for splitting up the talk page. [[User:Grarr|Grarr]] 17:44, 22 April 2008 (BST)


:No, the Arbitration system sucks for ease of following now.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 20:12, 22 April 2008 (BST)
::we can see how this works out next time someone request a promotion... this will help a lot on the rare occasions where more than one user asks for a promotion... it was a pain to follow the promotion bids from akule and axe, imho. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 01:33, 23 April 2008 (BST)
:::And if you're only following one then it's much less annoying, too. [[User:Grarr|Grarr]] 17:31, 23 April 2008 (BST)
:Yes, I think it would be easier that way. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 03:42, 24 April 2008 (BST)
:No. Whilst I hated to go through all the scrolling of unnecessary comments at [[A/A]] in the past, votes on the Promotion sections are much more meaningful and altogether have a more substantial "real content per line" ratio, thus making having to browse through more pages in order to get to vote more of a bother than an actual improvement. This, combined with the fact that most Promotion requests are placed one at a time, will increase instead of reducing the actual scrolling per vote one wants to place. --[[User:Starplatinum|Starplatinum]] 06:16, 24 April 2008 (BST)


Speaking of streamlining promotion bids, was there ever a particular reason why there weren't defined sections for vouches, againsts, and abstains/questions?  It would seem easier to take tallies that way.  I just never recalled it ever being done that way, tis why I ask.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 11:14, 24 April 2008 (BST)
:I presume it's something to do with Promotions not being a vote, which results in tallies being somewhat irrelevant. Or then it's just plain laziness. --{{User:Midianian/Sig}} 11:26, 24 April 2008 (BST)
::The first reason, because it's not a vote. After the first 3 vouches it's purely about the opinions of people. A strong opinion in favor or against from an active user counts for more then a weak vouch or against by an inactive user. It's not digital, it's gradual. To sort them would introduce a more firm diversion between for and agianst then there usually is.--<small><span style="border: 1px solid MediumSeaGreen">[[User:Vista|'''<span style="background-color: Ivory; color:Black">&nbsp;Vista&nbsp;</span>''']][[Signature_Race|<span style="background-color: MediumSeaGreen; color: Ivory ">&nbsp;+1&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 11:29, 24 April 2008 (BST)


===Post implementation===
I'm sorry but, I already hate this system with a passion. It's done nothing but complicate things for everyone involved and actually goes so far as to remove the rules and guidelines as for what to look for in a candidate and how to comment.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 15:09, 29 April 2008 (BST)
:d'uh, then be bold and add them instead of complaining. They are already in a template. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 15:11, 29 April 2008 (BST)
::d'uh, if that was the only problem that probably would have been what I did. This system inconveniences everyone for the sake of "neatness" when the previous system has worked out fine.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 15:18, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Now I've got to add another page to my watchlist every time someone puts themself forward? Na, when it's such an underused page as promotions, it's not worth the effort. It's just as easy to archive the bid to a separate page after the bid is finished as it is to do it at the begining <small><span style="color:DodgerBlue">-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 15:53 29 April 2008 (BST)</span></small>
:Ditto. --[[User:Starplatinum|Starplatinum]] 19:25, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Please don't make individual pages for promotions in the future <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 10:46 17 May 2008 (BST)</small>
:Agree. This was annoying. I didnt even find out suicidal angel had replied to me until 5 minutes ago (A bit late for a further reply methinks), when i have both promotions and this talk page on my watch list. Keep em here. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 10:59, 17 May 2008 (BST)
::As the box. I hated having to go to the promo page, and then clicking on another link (with dead internets might I add) just to see how my bid goes. And really Grim? I just thought you were too busy to reply to me. Thats sad. Continue it again some other time?--{{User:Suicidalangel/Sig}} 15:14, 17 May 2008 (BST)
:Well, we'd never find it difficult without trying. I kind of agree with all that has been said about this, and don't further support this. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 17:04, 17 May 2008 (BST)


== Random changing of promotions ==


I entirely missed the discussion on this, where was it?


You appear to have removed the ability for one user to nominate another one, haven't you? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:Eh? I still see this "Note that if a person is nominated by another user, the candidate in question should note their acceptance of the nomination". Is that what you're talking about?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


:I was writting this on the [[Template talk:Promotions Intro|guidelines talk page]], but i guess its better in here.
==[[User:Jerrel Yokotory|Jerrel]]==
:I have made these changes to the guidelines (see what changed [[User:Hagnat/Projects/Promotion Guidelines|here]]) to prevent cases such as lithedarkangel's promotion and to prevent a user from spamming the promotion pages and wiki news with nominations to himself or users who are not interested in the task. A user can still be nominated by others, but the nominating user must gather the 3 vouches before making the nomination here.
{{bid|Jerrel Yokotory|PM}}
:The guidelines already said that a user should gather the vouches before moving his candidacy into community discussion. The changes made simply tell them to do so outside this page, since gathering the vouches HERE is already having a nomination under community discussion. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::Maybe you should have consulted others before changing it?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Well that doesn't entirely make sense. You keep the clause about wanting to be a sysop, yet the only people who can post a promotion bid now ARE those who want to be a sop.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::::it does make sense: you gather the vouches for a user, ask if he is interested, and then post the nomination here. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::::You can compare this with how suggestions are made in Dev Suggestions before hitting the main page. Its to work on it and see if there is a chance of it actually be approved. And since this are only guidelines, you are not supposed to follow it by the letter and you can simply ignore the entire thing. How many times must i repeat myself about this ? --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Doesn't make sense.  "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)." By implementing a rule change that they must seek out votes and then '''personally''' apply on promotions for the position, the entire quoted section is pointless. The process itself is the desire to become a sop. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::: which "''rule''" are you talking about? oic, you are talking about a guideline... which can be IGNORED --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Tell that to everyone who's had an escalation for breaking point 10 of the suggestions ''guidelines''. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::guidelines. sorry. Have we got any previous issues with candidates being refused promotion for not following the guidelines?Is the whole self nomination thing even needed? Looking back we've only had 5 candidates in 4 years refuse nomination....  --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::: let me try to answer your question, not locking like an ass now. User A can gather vouches for User B in a talk page (either User A or User B talk page), ask User B if he is interested, and when he says he is, User A can nominate the user. Yes, it lacks the element of surprise the current one has, but this atleast spares the community from having to discuss on unaccepted nominations or candidacies that will undoubtedly fail. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 01:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


I've reverted it back. This should've been discussed first. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable sortable plainlinks"
|+ Jerrel Sysop Campaign Assets
! № !! Title !! Content
|-
! 00001
! Logo
| [[Image:Expect_us_2.png‎ |"we don't know either"]]
|-
! 00002
! Theme
| [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ "You Haven't Seen The Last Of Me"] by [[wikipedia:Cher|Jer (born Jerrelyn Sarkisian)]]
|-
! 09453
! Personal quote
| ''"I may not be the best formating guy, but I'm learning."''
|-
! 00174
! Campaign Cartoon
| ''[[wikipedia:Tom and Jerry|"The Tom and Jerrel Show"]]''<br>Realistic depiction of Jerrel's constant conflict with the downpressing [[UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat_Promotions|cats]]. All the violence in this show is based on actual A/VB and A/A drama.
|-
! 00001
! The Truth
| In 2 weeks from now, it will be April 15. And Jerrel will be a sysop by that date.
|}


This is yet another attempt by hagnat to stealth rule this wiki. There is no significant spam problem through the promotions system. As hagnat points out these are simply guidelines and may be changed by any user. Given that no attempt at consultation was made with the wider community, if there is consensus from at least one other user I will revert his changes until the appropriate discussions have been made. EDIT: Mid beat me to it. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm really amazed at the fact that this hasn't been put up any earlier. While there have been very good reasons to criticise Jerrel in the past, he has massively shaped up ever since.


Actually, I think I'm going to revert all of hag's changes for now. Lets get some input from everyone else, yeah? EDIT: Mid got it. And then Iscariot edit conflicted me. Damn you both! :) --<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
He hasn't done a single bad edit in months - not in five months, not in six months, no, in friggin' seven months! That beats even Ross' track record, who has been put up on A/VB once during that time.


There is a certain logic to Hagnat's idea. However, I think he takes it too far. I suggest something very simple. A seperate header for seeking nominations. Once you get three, then voting commences automatically. The vouches, however, are counted as FOR votes normally, of course. I'd suggest 48 hours to collect three vouches. Voting per se could still start before those vouches are received, but if after 48 hours they're not received, it's archived as failed. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Apart of that, he is a nice guy who actively fights cussing on the wiki.
:Thats exactly what i was trying to prevent: HAVING failed nominations. Even if you limited this nomination period to 1 hour it would still be enough time to create a shitload of unneeded drama. A user should only run for sysop when he had a slight chance of getting promoted. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 19:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


==Guidelines overhaul==
What could possibly go wrong by promoting someone like him? --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 15:21, 1 April 2011 (BST)
Proposed changes:


*'''Strong Vouch''' - I like his campaign cartoon. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 15:21, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*:ha! love the time stamp on this--<small> <span style="color: DarkMagenta">The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking </span><div style="display: inline-block; height: 14px; width: 18px; overflow: hidden; vertical-align: text-bottom;">[[User:Sexualharrison|<span style="position: absolute; display: block; font-size: 0px; height: 14px; width: 18px;"> </span>]][[Image:Boobs.sh.siggie.gif|18px]]</div> [[User talk:Sexualharrison|<span style="color:Red">bitch</span>]] 15:34 1 April 2011 (UTC)</small>
*::Rather start to vouch for Jerrel and his anti-cussing campaign, you massively retarded faggot. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 15:36, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*:::how about you both go fuck yourselfs twice with thads fat head.--<small> <span style="color: DarkMagenta">The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking </span><div style="display: inline-block; height: 14px; width: 18px; overflow: hidden; vertical-align: text-bottom;">[[User:Sexualharrison|<span style="position: absolute; display: block; font-size: 0px; height: 14px; width: 18px;"> </span>]][[Image:Boobs.sh.siggie.gif|18px]]</div> [[User talk:Sexualharrison|<span style="color:Red">bitch</span>]] 15:41 1 April 2011 (UTC)</small>
*<s>'''Against'''</s> might be an even bigger tool than thad if that's at all possible --<small> <span style="color: DarkMagenta">The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking </span><div style="display: inline-block; height: 14px; width: 18px; overflow: hidden; vertical-align: text-bottom;">[[User:Sexualharrison|<span style="position: absolute; display: block; font-size: 0px; height: 14px; width: 18px;"> </span>]][[Image:Boobs.sh.siggie.gif|18px]]</div> [[User talk:Sexualharrison|<span style="color:Red">bitch</span>]] 15:35 1 April 2011 (UTC)</small>
:'''weak vouch''' oh yer right. i am massively retarded.--<small> <span style="color: DarkMagenta">The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking </span><div style="display: inline-block; height: 14px; width: 18px; overflow: hidden; vertical-align: text-bottom;">[[User:Sexualharrison|<span style="position: absolute; display: block; font-size: 0px; height: 14px; width: 18px;"> </span>]][[Image:Boobs.sh.siggie.gif|18px]]</div> [[User talk:Sexualharrison|<span style="color:Red">bitch</span>]] 15:46 1 April 2011 (UTC)</small>
*'''Strong Vouch''' - As Spider. {{User:Vapor/sig}} <sub>15:44, 1 April 2011</sub>
*'''Incredible Hulkingly Strong Vouch''' - His sound advice and patience in our many long chats on IRC encouraged me to keep playing UD when I was at my lowest. And, he can fly. I love him. {{User:Kempy/sig}} 16:09, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*'''Against''' - way to biest for his own good --{{User:Michaleson/sig}} 16:46, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*'''<s>Who?</s> er... MULTIPLE ORGASM VOUCH''' - I heard he was working on a time machine, so everything is kosher. Well, except for the time machine, I heard there was meat next to cheese. --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 17:42, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*'''Questions'''
*# What is different this time from the previous times you've asked for promotion?
*# I notice on your talk page that you said that you wouldn't run again.  What made you change your mind?  [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 20:04, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*#:he hasn't acceptced the bid yet any way ash --<small> <span style="color: DarkMagenta">The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking </span><div style="display: inline-block; height: 14px; width: 18px; overflow: hidden; vertical-align: text-bottom;">[[User:Sexualharrison|<span style="position: absolute; display: block; font-size: 0px; height: 14px; width: 18px;"> </span>]][[Image:Boobs.sh.siggie.gif|18px]]</div> [[User talk:Sexualharrison|<span style="color:Red">bitch</span>]] 00:31 2 April 2011 (UTC)</small>
*With a campaign this awesome, how could he possibly steer us wrong‽ [[User:Jerrel Yokotory|Jerrel]] for <s>[[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysops are not Moderators|Mod]]</s> <s>Sysop</s> <s>Bureaucrat</s> [[Church of Kevan|God]]! {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 01:23, 2 April 2011 (BST)
*'''Fucking Against''' - he "fights cussing on the wiki"? Fuck that! --{{User:Lady Clitoria/Sig}} 08:32, 2 April 2011 (BST)


# Increasing the minimum required time active on the UD Wiki to be 3 (I'd like 4) months, from 2 months
It's no longer April fools... so that'll be quite enough of that. The user is unlikely to accept, given their last post was in August <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:52 2 April 2011 (BST)</span></small>
# Increasing the minimum number of edits to 1,500, from 500
# Increase the number of minimum edits of the first 3 users vouching to 500 each
# Some sort of Nomination system.


Discuss.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
==Archived Discussion==
:User the + button next time you create a new header, you editing conflicted bastard. I think only the minimum time should be incread (3 is more than enough), and the changes i made, of course. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I archived the stuff from 2008 to 2010, as it's all painfully out of date. --{{User:Akule/sig}} 02:33, 8 April 2011 (BST)
:I reordered everything too, so now it should make some sense. --{{User:Akule/sig}} 01:10, 15 April 2011 (BST)
::I archived all discussion here to the relevant bids. and also removed vandal bids that were moved here. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 03:55, 17 April 2011 (BST)


I'm fine with changes 1, 2 and 3. 4 is completely unneeded, Hagnat's point about news spam is completely strawman, most of the unaccepted ones don't even land on there, mine didn't, and it shouldn't be put up there until the three vouches are received. The main problem with Hagnat's bad faith stealth changes is the change that definitively ''requires'' support from a current sysop. It is not required by the current guidelines, the notion of the promotions system is support from the community in general, not the exercising of some 'Old Boys' Club'. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
==The Next Sys-Op Speculation Corner==
{{cquote||I'd rather have a team including historically sporadic editors, rather than just me, vapor and spiderzed. [...] As always I encourage more of you to run for sysop. We need fresh blood. Especially since Grim took all the black pudding away|[[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Revenant/2012-01-15 Re-Evaluation|Rosslessness]]}}
There hasn't been a single bid since July, and of the 9 remaining ops, not all look that fresh either. Anyone having any candidates in mind? Some I would know off the top of my head:
*[[User:Chief Seagull|Chief Seagull]] - Regular bot reporter, knows wiki-code and wiki-procedure.
*[[User:DanceDanceRevolution|DDR]] - Op of olde, still popping in all the time.
*[[User:Mazu|Mazu]] - Highly active, has with Project:Very Funny involvement with a bigger wiki project, knows wiki-code.
*[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]] - Wiki vet, regular bot reporter.
*[[User:MisterGame|Thad]] - Greatest Sys-Op Evar. (j/k)
--'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">█ </span>]]</span>''' 13:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
:lolharrison. Looks like you inadvertently made more then just 1 joke.-- [[Image:Cat Pic.png|14px]] [[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''Thadeous Oakley''']]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span>  16:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
:::riiiiight b/c you were such an effective and well liked sysop. what did you actually do or accomplish with the buttons again? oh right '''nothing!'''  shouldn't you be off blowing yon and ddr or something? and no thank you. i am flattered but RL and my complete lack of interest in UDwiki policy, and my unhelpful nature makes me an unsuitable  candidate. --{{User:Sexualharrison/sig}}<small>18:49, 5 February 2012 (bst)</small>
::::Oi lay off I'm allowed to have my opinions and I liked Thad. All the extra curricular things me and Thad did were purely unconditional. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 23:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
::Also, I don't really see the need for more sysops. The current crew is mostly capable enough, and it's not like your drowning in work with all the little activity. Fresh blood for the sake of fresh blood alone isn't a real issue, and it certainly shouldn't be used as for an excuse for even lower sysops requirements in case that there is no immediate ideal candidate. - [[Image:Cat Pic.png|14px]] [[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''Thadeous Oakley''']]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span>  16:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
:::It's less of a current problem, more one I see occurring over the next year. I honestly can't see the next generation coming through. still better than giving it to Amazing and Hagnat to run.--[[User:Rosslessness|Ross<sup>less</sup>ness]]  16:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


:Do you ever read page rules before commenting on them? You've been required to get a sysop vouch for a very very long time now and it's probably the easiest thing to do with Conndraka and Hagnat wandering about. The only person that couldn't get one is you or a frequent vandal, for the same reason, both have shown they'll abuse the ability. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 20:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:I've seen a few other like [[User:Shortround|Shortround]] and [[User:Gordon|Gordon]] who have taken initiative in the past couple of months and who, given time could grow into stellar candidates if they stick around. It's really all about learning policy, which seems daunting at first but isn't too overwhelming once you dive into it. Its really easy to get burned out doing this so if I had a piece of advice for any would-be sysops, its don't get drawn into every single spot of drama you run across. Vandal Banning and Misconduct is really a rather small part of what sysops do but a lot of emphasis seem to be placed there. The wiki is full of holes to be plugged and teh buttons are your thumbs needed to stick in them. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>16:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)</sub>


::Somehow I'm thinking I read them better than you. You are referring to this section:''"We define this as a minimum of three other users ('''preferably''' users with at least 200 edits under their name and at least one System Operator)"'' emphasis mine. Preferably is a qualifier for that entire sentence, meaning that it is ''preferred'' that the three users have at least 200 edits and it is ''preferred'' that one of them be a sysop. It is not a requirement. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
We have a sysop team with smallish activity, which is fine because of the minimal workload. Personally I think you're all getting lazy and that small workload can take an embarrassingly long time to complete but it's inconsequential. UDWiki doesn't really need more ops IMO {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 23:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
:I agree with DDR.  We don't need more Ops.  We need less.  Let's get rid of the ones with less than 1000 edits since the past 91 days. :P --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 00:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
::A week and Misanthropy gets warned, sadly  : ( {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 00:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
:There's more factors than just laziness, likely. Personally, I don't see any harm in promoting ''qualified'' users that want to help. RL and other factors will inevitably claim other sysops such as myself (one of the factors I was referring to) and everyone will be glad for it. Decide not to promote now and we'll potentially lose the oppurtunity to have enough hands on deck in times of need. Think of the children! ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>00:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)</sub>
::I agree. I just think it should be the community that rises to add themselves to the sysop team, not the other way around. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 00:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
:::As a member of the community, you have to be either a masochist or have ulterior motives to want to be a sysop.  Checks on your buttons and janitorial bs hardly sounds like fun.  --[[User:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="Color: black">Kirsty</span>]] <sub>[[Organization_XIII|<span style="color: grey">Org XIII</span>]]</sub> <sup>[[User:Kirsty_cotton/alts|<span style="color: blue">Alts</span>]]</sup> 00:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
::::I can honestly say I've enjoyed being a sysop. There are times that I don't of course but the majority of the times, yes. To be honest, Urban Dead is a boring game. If it weren't for the meta game and the wiki, I doubt many people would still play. Some prefer the meta game and some prefer the wiki. It takes all types, really. We're all just making Urban Dead less boring in our own individual way. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>04:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)</sub>
::This would be true, in my case it's mostly due to the lack of things to do here meaning I'm devoting more time to places that need it on other parts of the internet. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


:::Come back when a user is promoted without a sysop vouch. You can't and won't because it will never happen. Keep thinking you're being clever by arguing that preferably makes it any less of a real requirement that is being made clear to the users ''before'' the bid takes place, I'm just gonna be over here laughing at your belief that you're right in any way. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
== Adjusting Guidelines for System Operator Requests ==


::::I do so enjoy it when you tell the truth Karek. What he's saying to all our viewers out there, is it doesn't matter how well liked you are by the entire community, if a group of less than 10 individuals doesn't like you, you can't gain promotion on this wiki. Entrenched individuals deciding things against community consensus, since 2005. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as I have several of the more influential wikizens here against my current promotion bid for the same reason, being that I'm a bit too new, I'd like to suggest changing the current policy. This is in no way to contest the reactions on my bid, since I completely understand this reason, but rather to prevent people from making bids like mine in the future.


:::::If a user is liked by the entire communitiy, chances are high that he will be liked by someone in the admin staff too. Like karek said, there will always be an inclusionist like conn or myself around. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 21:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
====Proposal:====


:::::To all our viewers out there what Iscariot is really saying here is that he thinks ''he'' is actually liked by the community no matter how many times people tell him he is an unwanted troll because if he does ever get a bid up he's gonna beg in IRC for votes, which will probably end up changed when someone actually shows them the kinda shit he pulls on a regular basis here. It's the same reason why he'll beg users to make him a bid but won't let users that aren't omg popular do it, he craves approval and has deluded himself into thinking he actually has it from anyone here.<br /><br /> TL:DR? If you're approved of by the community ''you will get a sysop vouch'', if you're not approved of by the 'crats you don't stand a chance anyway and they happen to actually be sysops. Iscariot be trollin'.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
* '''Significant time within the community.'''
:::::Because the position one is applying for is a sysop, so it's not completely unfounded for people who ''are'' sysops and thus have experience in the matter to require some support from them. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:We define this as at least '''6 months''' since the candidate's first edit.  
1) 4 months would be OK with me. 2) No problem. 3) I'd prefer if the whole "still requiring vouches" phase was removed. 4) What? Why? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:<small>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.</small>


:Not agreeing with is but, it would be a way to show the required trust in the community, or at least from part of the community no matter how small. I don't think it's needed though, all it will prevent is new users making bids. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 20:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
{{User:Peralta/Signature}} 08:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
:Ahh, but you see, the reason these outdated systems are in place is yet another way we can determine who is right for the job, because only the people who had the experience would know that these silly restrictions weren't in any way accurate!
:But in most seriousness, it could do with a refresh, although we should make it approximate to the limits of most appropriate candidates more than simply following current trends of the 'age' of successful candidates. Badly worded, but what I mean is that if it were completely accurate to past candidates it would probably be a minimum of 12 months, and I don't know if that's a good number, so 6 months is probably a better all-round number even though realistically and historically it's probably a bit too low. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 09:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
::Starting to wonder who set it at 2 months in the first place... Anyway, a year will eliminate most "fresh" wikizens: the numbers for UD have been going down for years, and I'm pretty sure that there only a couple thousand (if even) unique people active. Keeping them active longer than a year is a task in itself: the amount and size of groups has gone down quite a bit, taking away an important direct support line. Same goes for the wiki: you've got the veterans here and only one in a couple hundred rookies will make it to that status thanks to stagnating numbers and updates. (the main reason I unstub as much as possible is to make the wiki more "complete", which should keep players interested longer. Same goes for the status reports) {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 10:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
:::The 2 months rule is a remnant of earlier days when the wiki was very new I believe, when 2 months and substantial knowledge and respect in other parts of the meta-gaming community would be enough to get someone through. But now the wiki is a bit more autonomous in content and candidate selection, it might as well be updated to reflect as much {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 10:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm sure It used to be three months,but was changed by a policy discussion. The bid template became standard after I added the vndl template to my first bid, as it seemed a useful link, before we created a specialist one. I would make it standard though. --[[User talk:Rosslessness|Ross Less Ness]] <sup>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERLLUoZn0mM Enter Stranger...]</sup> 13:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::i blame hagnat--{{User:Sexualharrison/sig}}<small>14:37, 20 November 2012 </small>
::::::Honestly? From not being there but knowing how the rest of the guidelines were made, I would too. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 15:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


::1's OK with me, and 2's not bad, although 1,000 edits seems a bit more reasonable. I don't see why 3 or 4 are needed, though. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
A few points of clarification, since there are reasons for things being the way they are. First, changing the number of months to something higher has been [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Update_Promotion_Procedure|proposed in the past]] and failed. The reason is simple: those guidelines are ''minimum'' qualifications, not ''expectations'', so we don't want to exclude an exceptional candidate just because of an arbitrary time limit. If you want to read about unofficial expectations, we have a [[User:Aichon/Other/So you want to be a sysop?|different page for that]]. :P


I would like to point out that point 4 was in response to Hagnat wanting some sort of nomination system in here, not that I want it. I don't, I like how it works now.
Second, when people say, "Wait a few more months," they generally don't mean that you need to pay your dues by putting in your time before you can be a sysop (though I'll admit some of them do mean that). The phrase is usually code for, "You are still making some newbie mistakes and don't seem to know how everything works yet, but you've demonstrated an ability to learn from your mistakes, so you'll be past that stage soon." Based on some of the mistakes you've made in your own nomination (e.g. not knowing from past promotion bids to use {{tl|bid}} or update the Wiki News and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&diff=2042304&oldid=2042298 not indenting properly in your responses]), I suspect the latter is what most people really mean. As such, altering the promotion guidelines wouldn't actually address the problem that you're facing for future nominations. All it would do is eliminate potential candidates. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
:I disagree, I feel such a comment is more likely to mean. "Yes your new and you seem keen, but lets see what you're really like before I give you the power to look up my IP and stuff." People create impressions over time, the bid process should reflect that. --[[User talk:Rosslessness|Ross Less Ness]] <sup>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERLLUoZn0mM Enter Stranger...]</sup>  16:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
::Fair enough. I'd agree that it can mean that as well. Either way, we can agree that it usually doesn't just mean, "I feel people should be here for X time before they are allowed to be sysops." It usually means that the person has an expectation that has not yet been fulfilled but likely will be with some more time and experience. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 17:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
:::I looked at the previous bid, the example and guidelines, and didn't see a single {{tl|bid}} requirement or example, and honestly, indentation as an example? Why? :P And come on, honestly: I've made 2.000 edits, started the biggest non-bot wiki project in a very long time, took part in several discussions, helped new players and reported bots. I've been socially active here ever since the Danger Center project in August, and I can't imagine anyone being ready after two months if I'm not after nearly 4. There have been raised a few valid arguments (like not being active in A/VB), what I don't understand is people going on about small things, like the bid template or indentations. Honest to god, are those the things that really matter? {{User:Peralta/Signature}} 19:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
::::{{tl|bid}} isn't a requirement, it's merely standard practice on any serious bids. The last bid we had was a joke one, so no one bothered to add the template. You probably should have consulted the one before that. And the template and indentation gaffes, by themselves, don't really matter, but people have historically used them as an indication of whether or not someone knows how things work around here (plus, making a mistake of any sort in your nomination is kinda like having a typo in the ad for your business: it doesn't reflect well on you), so while they ''should'' not matter, they kinda ''do'' to some people. As for the timing, while six months tends to be the earliest that most people get promoted, I'd say that we have plenty of examples of sysops who chose to wait 6 months but could have actually been promoted earlier, had they applied. In your case, I think it's just a matter of lack of opportunity. As Ross said, people like to have seen candidates demonstrate how they'll respond to situations. You really just haven't had a chance to do that, but had you had one, I'd think you'd have a lot more support already. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 20:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
:Sorta as Ross. Yeah, minimum requirements yes, but 2 months? No user in history would get in here after existing for two months no matter what they did. Even as a simple minimum requirement it is completely unrealistic {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 00:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
::I'm definitely in agreement that the requirement needs to be changed. This is especially true because it gives new users a false sense of when they can move up in the ranks. I know when I arrived, and began hunting around the Administration pages, I was quite surprised that people could become sysops in two months. It gave me the impression that the wiki is, so to speak, "loose" or poorly-governed if such new people are able to gain positions of power. I later got the impression, through watching relatively new people's bids like [[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Yonnua Koponen/2012-03-14 Promotion|Shortround's first]] and now Johnny's, that rather than being ''poorly-governed'', the wiki was instead being ''deceptive''. The first line of information new users get about the wiki is the actual policy, rather than the precedent of individual actions, and thus policy should best reflect the reality of the situation.
::If someone brought a proposal for change to a vote (which I would note got [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update Promotion Procedure#Policy 1: Updated Promotion Criteria 2|a majority last time]], barely missing 2/3rds and 20 votes), I would be in complete support. I hope we can get some wiki reforms in this manner going, to reflect in policy the changing assumptions under which we operate here. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 00:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
:::I suspect that you guys may not be thinking big enough when you're suggesting that the requirements get pushed up. Head to [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Update_Promotion_Procedure|the talk page for the vote you linked]] and give it a read, since there's a lot of good discussion there. To summarize, as you increase the requirements you exclude more potential candidates since you're introducing additional bureaucratic barriers, which is the exact opposite of what we want. We actively want to encourage people to apply by removing as many barriers as possible, so we've set the requirements at the minimum point where they should not keep out any viable candidates. But we have no power to control people's expectations, nor can we quantify something that is constantly changing. And codifying high expectations would merely undermine our efforts to get more people applying.
:::That said, I do think that some clarification could be in order. Personally, I always thought they were clear enough (after all, most jobs come with pre-reqs, and meeting them simply entitles you to apply, not to automatically have the job), but if that's not the idea everyone else gets from them, then we need to fix that. We could point them to past promotions or current sysop activity levels for some of that, or else add some more wording to the explanation to make it clearer, but the clarity issue is separate from increasing the requirements, and should be kept separate. With any change to the requirements, you need to be analyzing what purpose it would be serving, and the purpose you're suggesting for changing them (i.e. adding clarity) can be handled in other ways and is secondary to the primary purpose of encouraging additional candidates to apply.
:::Also, I wanted to toss in a few quick side notes about various facts. First, that vote may look close at first glance, but it wasn't really, since the Yes side needed an additional 50% more votes than it got. Second, the 20 votes thing has [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/No_minimum_vote_on_APD|since been rescinded]]. Third, I did a casual look through some of the old promotions, and without doing any exhaustive searching, I've already found two sysops who were promoted in two months (Xoid and Vantar), neither of which was in the earliest days of the wiki, as well as about a half-dozen more in the 3-5 month range, some not too long ago, so this idea that no one can do it is a bit off-base. I'm fine with 3 months instead of 2, but any more than that and we'd be creating barriers that undermine our bigger goals. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 04:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
::::If you ask me, adding links to past promotions or add more explanation like you suggested is doing the exact same restrictive thing, with less chance people will notice or read the whole thing than a simple number. Especially so if the number will be there either way. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 05:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure if you're simply against adding that wording or are for increasing the requirements. If it's the former, I don't follow your logic. Acknowledging the existence of expectations that are outside the control of policy, which is what I'm willing to do, is not the same as officially endorsing them, which is what it sounds like you think I suggested. If it's the latter, then it sounds like you're making an argument along the lines of "the expectations are being used either way, so we may as well codify them". I'll counter that with, "Codify what and to what purpose?"
:::::I hope we can all agree that the goal is to ensure that candidates have proven themselves. Nothing more, nothing less. We have some ideas for how people can do that and how long it generally takes. Those are our expectations. But I think we're all smart enough to acknowledge that if someone can prove themselves in less time or with less edits that there's no reason to hold them back arbitrarily, since that would be bureaucracy for its own sake. Essentially, it wouldn't serve our purpose, since our ''goal'' is that someone proves themselves, not that they spend X time doing it, even if it is our ''expectation'' based on past experience that it will take them X time for most people.
:::::That's my issue with raising the requirements to match expectations. Just because it took me six months to go from newcomer to sysop candidate doesn't mean we should force everyone else to take six months. And just because I was averaging 660 posts per month when I first became a sysop candidate does not mean we should require that from all candidates, even though it's in line with typical sysop activity rates. We've had candidates get promoted after just two months and with a mere fraction that number of posts, so we know it can be done. The requirements are there to exclude obviously unqualified people, but once you're past that, let people prove themselves whenever and however they can. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 07:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::I would agree that bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake (or requirements for requirements' sake) is definitely a bad thing. But I think the issue here is one of impression. What impression do the current requirements give to new users? Whether it's that you only need two months' worth of work (which most users definitely need more than) to be a sysop, or (on further inspection) that the requirements as listed are misleading, neither reflects well on the wiki.
::::::To respond to the above and to a point made by Aichon in edit summary, I only use the phrase "move up the ranks" because that is how most new users will likely view the system. Many people begin working on a wiki thinking that, if they work hard enough, at some point they'll get buttons access. Call it the "American Dream" of wikis, if you will. Until they get to know that that's not how we do things around here, that's how they'll conceive of it. My desire for change is (again) rooted in trying to give new wiki-users the clearest and truest first impressions possible. Maybe the best way to do that is to remove the time requirement altogether, and say that a user "must spend time as a wiki editor long enough to build the confidence of the community" or some such. Or maybe there's another alternative. But in any case, the current system fails to give new users the proper impression of the actual (semi-unstated) requirements to be a sysop.
::::::As a side note, if 660 edits a month is "typical" for a sysop, then right now [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:ActiveUsers&limit=500 only you and I surpass that], Aichon; maybe Ross and Charles W. and, at a stretch, Johnny Twotoes, are in the neighborhood. The actual average among current sysops is more like 250. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 21:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Wow, hadn't realized I was the most active user. When I was a sysop my first time around, my activity levels was pretty stable around 3500 posts/6 months, but there were also a few sysops ahead of me, so I had figured that those activity levels were still typical. Go figure. Thanks for the fact check. :)
:::::::Anyway, as I said, I don't have a problem with clarifying things so that it can provide a better impression, to borrow your term. My only concern is with actually changing the minimum requirements. Clarifying that they are merely the bar you must clear before you can ''apply'', but that they do not, in and of themselves, qualify you for the job is something I could go for. And I like the idea of replacing a hard number with something that gets more at the heart of the matter, like what you suggested. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::::"If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain amount of leeway may be given with the other criteria." Might be a good sentence to include, so the people making the decision understand that it's just guidelines. --[[User talk:Rosslessness|Ross Less Ness]] <sup>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERLLUoZn0mM Enter Stranger...]</sup>  22:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::Like Bob says, this is less about the guidelines governing user input more than it is impressions left for new users/users applying for the position. I may be presumptuous in assuming this but it's always been my understanding that people in the community don't use the guidelines when making calls on a candidate, they do it on judgements on whether the user is ready or not- mostly based on the standard of sysop-readiness at the time. No references to Johnny's new-ishness in this current bid, for example, referenced a crit, moreso they say that he is 'not ready'. This happens to all bids that go through the wiki. Also, as Ross concerning people being governed by potentially harsh rules. If someone's ''that'' damn good at 2 months it won't matter if they've only been here 2 months and the guidelines specify 6. They ''should'' be judged on their exemplary performance in other areas as it already states. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 07:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


Point three though, would help keep some group member from nominating someone, and then more of the group vouching to get him under com. review, meaning we have to go through the whole charade when there really is no point. It's not definite, it was just one of the original ideas me and Dux had.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
== New proposal to adjust Sysop Guidelines ==


==[[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Promotion Guidelines Overhaul]]==
I noticed this while applying to become a sysop but obviously that would have been an atrocious time to propose this.


Now there's a policy that failed because not enough people voted on it, if ever I saw one. BArring the questions, I think the numbers are a good example.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I think [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions#Guidelines_for_System_Operator_Requests|500 edits in 6 months]] is simply too much to expect of a user in the wiki's current (and likely permanent) state of activity. As an example, I considered myself a fairly strong candidate for being a sysop and I only had about half that.
:I know, we hashed it out for awhile on the talk page of it. :) --<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


==Karek's Pettiness and Incorrectness==
I believe the position of sysop ''is'' more accessible to our userbase than the 500 edit "requirement" makes it appear to be.
Karek has decided to revert my rightful edit to the page. As is typical with Karek he attempts to browbeat other users with a facetious and patently wrong comment.


And I quote from the guidelines that are freely available at the top of the page:
So, as a baseline, I'd like us to consider maybe halving this number to 250 edits in 6 months as an average standard for a sysop candidate.
''"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:''


'''''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, as all users get a chance to air their opinions on the candidate.''
Thoughts? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/tcs}} 03:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
:I'd definitely endorse this change, but the requirements are defined [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update Promotion Procedure(2)|by policy]], so this would require a policy vote. (Hopefully a quick/simple one.) I'd be down to drop it to as little as 150 edits in six months, but boost the minimum time since joining to six months (odd that the two are misaligned currently also — be a member for two months but have X edits in six months), or 150 edits in two months and keep the time since joining as is. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 19:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
::Also I still agree with most of what I said in the discussion right above this one (hence my ongoing support for six months since joining rather than two). For the record, to update the numbers: The current [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:ActiveUsers&limit=500 average edits per sop per month) is 385, but that's me skewing the stats; if you remove me it's 125. Four or five non-sop users reach 125, and maybe two more are above 84, the number you need to reach 500 edits in six months on average. Halving it to 42 (so, 250 in six months) adds an additional five people. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 19:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
:::Thanks a bunch for that insight (and backing it up with some data). I'll take this to A/PD when I have the chance. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/tcs}} 01:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
::::Am I reading that link correctly? I have 275 edits in how many days? 30 doesn't seem right.--{{User:Gardenator/sig}} 07:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::So, I think "actions" differ from "edits". How? I have no idea. But I think that may be one of the reasons my numbers seem much higher than my actual edits appear to be. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/tcs}} 10:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
::::::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Preferences This] provides a bit more about actual edits over actions - but can only see the total edits and not minors, reverts or monthly. -- [[User:Jack&#39;s Inflamed Sense Of Rejection|The Artist Formerly Known As AudioAttack]] ([[User talk:Jack&#39;s Inflamed Sense Of Rejection|talk]]) 11:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::You're right, your actual contributions only lists just under 50. Maybe Active Users is broken again :( {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 12:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
:Would it be better to perhaps look at the quality of the edits made? Like, are the edits <i>improving</i> the wiki in some way, and not just little bits here and there fixing spelling or whatever? I think we should definitely keep it at six months rather than two as that allows a somewhat better judge of character, especially for newer people to the wiki, than what two months would be. I'm all good with reducing the total number of edits, but as long as those edits aren't just made to get the number of edits required. {{User:Stelar/sig}} 12:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
::I think that's what the vouch system is for. If someone makes X number of edits, but all but a few of them are DangerReports, nobody will be able to vouch since their actual wiki work/skills won't be on display. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 13:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I endorse this too. Still 6, but 250, not 500 --[[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness/Quiz|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[The Great Suburb Group Massacre|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]<sup>[[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: DarkRed">Want a Location Image?]] </span> </sup>  21:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


''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. "''
Thanks for the input everyone. Just a note to (I guess) continue this discussion at the new [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Guidelines Review|policy proposal talk page]], seeing as that's the official channel we have to do to get this changed. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/tcs}} 23:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


Emphasis mine.
== Twitter is Hiring ==


Wan's bid clearly does not meet criteria four, he has not posted here and no edit has been linked where he asserts this, therefore this bid is not yet subject to community discussion and should remain in the section I have again returned it to until this condition has been satisfied or until seven days has passed, at which time it can be archived as per Nubis' precedent. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"[[https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/10/05/211251/twitter-executive-is-also-a-british-army-psyops-solider|Twitter Executive Is Also A British Army 'Psyops' Solider]]" -- we have plenty of (former) psyops here at udwiki. Maybe we can send our resume to them. Either that, or we can apply for work for the British Army --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 08:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:you forgot to quote hagnat from his rewriting of the guiudelines when he said they were just guidelines and could be ignored.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:Brits don't like hiring Aussies so a few of us are out. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 20:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::Wan clearly has at least a small measure of desire to become a sysop. However, to avoid the needless drama over something like this, he needs to post here officially.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 22:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
::: I fully agree '''please for the love of everything holy, get Wan to post here'''. The last thing we need is yet another VB war between sysops and Iscariot. This entire thing can be avoided if WAn will just post something.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
::::My bid was up for days before i even noticed, Wan is not as active as he once was but has vlearly stated that he would consider running.... at the end of the day he can not be promoted against his wishes but you do have a point in that he really should have noticed by now!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 
Kindly note this now makes two ''trusted users'' that have reverted correct edits because it suits them. Rules for everyone else, and not for them. If Jerrel Yokotory had continually moved his promotion bid into that section they'd have escalated him, however different matter when it's them breaching the basic rules we all are supposed to obey to ensure fair process. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you for your input. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
::Damn ''trusted users'' anyway...--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 
Iscariot, I know what the guidelines say, and I believe guidelines should be followed pretty straight forwards sometimes (Keyword being sometimes. :D), but all in all, this doesn't matter too much. I promise he '''will not''' be promoted unless he states on the promotion page or it's talk that he clearly wants the position. Fair enough?--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 23:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:It's a simple fact that if Jerrel Yokotory moved his promotion to the under community discussion section without fulfilling the criteria, both of the aforementioned users would have moved it back to the ''correct'' section. If Jerrel had then put it back in the ''wrong'' section, these aforementioned users would have reverted that edit and left a note as to why in the edit summary, after that they'd have mentioned in on the fucking talk page, at yet another reversion they'd have escalated him for spamming up the fucking admin pages by subverting the process. They do it, and fuck me gently with a chainsaw, it's allowed! One rule for some and not for others.... perhaps I should be shocked and amazed....
 
:The pertinent point is how long Wan's bid will stay open for if ''at some point'' he chooses to accept. What happens if two weeks expire without him accepting? Will you then make a decision and establish crit 4 then? There could be a fuckload of users in this community waiting to see if he'll accept before noting that they are against his promotion, the guidelines and the entire fucking process is designed to give such users ''two weeks'' to register this disapproval should Wan accept and from that moment. This is an attempt to reduce the time and thereby subvert the process. If we're allowing this we may as well remove this entire fucking process and let Crat's promote on whim because this blatant double standard is making sure that dissent is discouraged or skirted through the actions of users that are supposed to represent and defend the will of the community of the UD wiki.
 
:Further there is the precedent that Nubis established with Jerrel's promotion bid. Jerrel, like Wan, had not fulfilled the criteria. After seven days Nubis archived the promotion as failed due to the criteria not being fulfilled. We all know that he won't be objective and archive this bid if it also goes to seven days with unfulfilled criteria. Are you going to SA? Should we restore Jerrel's bid to let Crat's decide as per Karek's attempt to browbeat the community in his edit summaries? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 
Does it ''really'' matter? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:You're attempting to reason with Iscariot here. Once he makes a point, right or not, it will be fought to his last breath.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 00:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:Actually, does it matter ''at all''? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 01:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
::It doesn't see because we have [[User:Boxy|two]] [[User:Suicidalangel|assholes]] who's job it is to make sure people don't get promoted without meeting all the qualifications along with having community support. It's largely irrelevant and as such we should be moving it like any other user. If we listened when Iscariot did crap like this we'd be the internet equivalent of teaching the mentally handicapped to fuck with sock puppets. Common Sense over rules loudmouthed idiots who dig for edit wars over unimportant issues. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 12:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Amen. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 19:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 
[[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Jerrel_Yokotory|One user]] does not fulfil one of the criteria. Nubis archives it after seven days.
 
Nubis proposes a user. Over a week later that user does not fulfil one of the criteria. Does this get archived? Is there any parity? No, one rule if a sysop likes you, another if they don't. Be shocked and amazed. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:Buddy, you need to get laid. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 03:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:Well, first of all, Jerrel failed '''three''' criteria (edits, "prior interest in maintaining the community", three vouches), not one. Second, the majority of people are vouching for Wan, while the majority were against Jerrel. So, no, it's not "one rule if a sysop likes you, another if they don't", it's more like "one rule if ''the community'' likes you, another if they don't", which doesn't sound half bad considering this is '''Promotions'''. It would help you in your Fight for the Rights of the Community if you actually paid attention to them. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 
== DanceDanceRevolution talk ==
 
*'''Vouch''' - By going on a long hiatus, it really shows me that this user wanted to separate the old him, from the new him. Admittedly, when I used to lurk around a but, DanceDanceRevolution used to be very active at the same time as me. Most of the time he was constructive and I both enjoyed and respected his opinion. He gave off the aura as someone who knew what they were doing, and I think that is very important to new users in particular. If there were more people like him around, I would have joined a lot earlier, and not been so put off by the constant drama and power struggles. I did see him get caught up in some drama with other users, but he was only ever secondary, and most of the time I took it as some tongue in cheek humour. Overall, I think that by coming back with a bang, DanceDanceRevolution is showing the community that he wants to be here, and he wants to be ridden of his past dramas. An extended hiatus is always a good opportunity to better yourself, and reflect on how you can better serve the community. Is that good enough Nubis? haha.--{{User:Disco Inferno/signature}} 14:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:Who the fuck are you?--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Haha and I didn't believe you were a goon.  *so proud*
::::@Disco - It's not ''better'' because you actually vouched for him.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 01:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I just looked at your page. I really don't feel the need to comment much further now haha. 'Tard.--{{User:Disco Inferno/signature}} 14:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:*Wait, so you're saying that inactivity was actually a positive thing? Lol. If I ever want to be sysop again I'll know what to do; simply take a break for a month or two, come back, go on a spree of "good" edits then submit a bid. It can't fail. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::*You are predictable, but I'll bite. No I'm not saying inactivity is good, I am saying that this user obviously knew he was heading down a bad path and did the only thing he could do to rid himself of it. I am vouching him because I think he would be a good sysop, not because he went on a hiatus. The fact that he came back shows me that he really wants to be here.--{{User:Disco Inferno/signature}} 14:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:::*Do you in fact know why he left? What if it wasn't to embark on some mystical journey of enlightenment but he simply was too busy IRL, or was butthurt about something that happened that he didn't like or any one of a million reasons (most of which far more probable too) than the one you name? I think you're playing armchair psychologist and I think you're dead wrong. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::::*Judging by the way you carry on around me Bob, it doesn't look like I'm the one who is butthurt. Still, after all this time. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 05:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::*What I want to know is, why the fuck does Cyberbob feel the need to make comments on everybodies vouches or againsts or abstains? He has already had his one opinion, and thats all he is worth on this page. If you disagree with someones opinion, then bad luck, its the Bureaucrats job to take opinions into account, not a regular users. Unless you are in some sort of important position, then why is your opinion more valid than somebody elses?--{{User:Disco Inferno/signature}} 07:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::*Why do you hate freedom? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::*It's a discussion. All this ''discussion'' helps the bureaucrats make up there mind. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::*omigod how dare you make a comment outside of ur <s>vote</s> ur such a fucking troll --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::*First, I never said it was a vote, if you bothered to be anything other than a fool you would realize that out of the 30 odd posts I have made, half of them are on this page, and half of those were explaining my loathing for people considering this a vote. On to your post, I hate freedom? You are the one that feels it necessary to make a comment on every post that you disagree with, oblivious to the fact that nobody takes a thing you say seriously, whether it is good or bad. I vouched, you could call that a freedom of mine, and you decided to attack me for it. Get the over your little piss fights with people, it looks as if it has been months. Grow up, and stop acting like a child. Also, if you meant to put a comma after the "Why", then no, I do not hate freedom, I just hate idiots who chime in like their opinion has any massive effect on this whole process anyway. You voted against, because you are have an incapability to rise above pettiness. We know that, so no more need to post. I'll be doing the same, regardless of what butthurt statement appears below this within the next 2.3 seconds.--{{User:Disco Inferno/signature}} 07:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::*YOUR RESISTANCE ONLY MAKES MY PENIS HARDER (9/10 would troll again) --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Wait, bob, I'm confused. Am ''I'' supposed to ''defend'' him this time? We seem to have switched roles here. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 01:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 
*'''Vouch''' Good enough for me. While you can still be a little abrasive that doesn't stop Nubis doing a decent job and I have noticed a lot of very constructive work from you recently. The fact that it will piss bob off is really just icing on the cake.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 08:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:*nice bad faith <s>vote</s> I'm sure the crats will definitely take it into account --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 08:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::*Nothing bad faith about my <s>vote</s> vouch. I weighed up the pro's and cons of the candidate and liked how he answered... the fact that it pisses you off is, as I say, a bonus!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 11:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:::*if you think I take you seriously enough to be pissed off that you're vouching for someone I'm against... lolnarcissism (you truly are nothing but an excellently easy troll target; your penchant for xbox hueg rants makes you juicy indeed) --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::::*I no longer care what you think Bob, why do you think i let you have the last word so often? Frankly you are a slightly amusing little troll and its funny to reflect that you really do think you are smarter than everyone here when the reality is that you are just a pathetic, bile filled little boy who still hasn't gotten over how "KEWL" it is to be rude on the internet--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::*I'd rather be a "little boy" on the internet than a 30-year-old kthxbai (also way to disprove your own comment about not caring what I think by going to such lengths to try and shout me down) --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::*You're just as narcissistic. There are other people who read this wiki, yet you assume he does it all just for you. Now, could you two please stop spamming this page with irrelevant crap? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 14:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::eh what? who does what all just for me? plz to be more clear tia --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 02:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::*'''please leave this space blank for bob's tiresome last word'''--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 
== [[User:WOOT|Rakuen]] ==
 
I'm awesome.
 
Also, cocks.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 21:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 
*'''NO''' and so soon after the last try this seems awfully like SPAMMING! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
*:Is there any actual rule against posting promotion bids so soon after each other? No? HAHA nigger.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''NO''' Your 6 page edits since your last bid have done nothing to change my mind. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
*:What do my last 6 edits have to do with anything? Check my edits before my last bid, and you'll see the awesomeness that is me.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Spam''' --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
*:COOOOCKS! {{unsigned|WOOT}}
*'''Against/No/Spam''' - I hope you get A/VB'd for this one.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
*:Me too, been trying for that 24 hour --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Spam''' - stop spamming the promotions page, woot. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 00:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:Fuck you.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Vouch''' - Call me an optimist. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:FUCK YEA SEAKING!--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Against''' - If Iscariot says you're cool, that's a strike. {{User:Blue Command Vic/Sig}} 04:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:Vendettas = uncool. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:^That... also you're a nigger. (not you Pesto)--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*::Maybe I am! --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Vagainst'''. I mean against...--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 04:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:This soooo means you aren't J3D's sheep...--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*::Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmk.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 09:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Dupe''' - As Ross. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:[[Image:Isee.jpg|40px]] IMAGES LOLOL--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Vouch''' one more says 2 weeks.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:FUCK YEA SEAKING!--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Vouch''' - I believe he has reformed himself since his last bid. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 06:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:I no rite? --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Against/No/Spam'''And that is saying something coming from me. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 07:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:Nigger.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Against''' - Too soon since the last one to be funny Rakky =[ {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 08:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:I heartily disconcur. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*:k --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Against''' - No. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 10:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:fgt --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Space Bat''' - :'( --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 14:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:Fuck Space Bat. RIP Boxxy's new video </3 --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*::[[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#User:WOOT|This]] is the punishment for insulting the Space Bat. >:( --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*:::\o/ --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Vouch''' - He will be an asset to the community. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:I came--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Against''' - Spam <span style="font-size: 25%">URANIUM BOMBS</span>.  --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 15:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*: 8D --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Silvio Berlusconi''' - I have to agree with DDR here i'm afraid...But I like your style generally though, this wiki is getting a bit dull. Action time nao?--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Against''' - Just say no.--{{User:Lois_Millard/sig}} 12:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''WTF CENTAUR''' - Cuz I can. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 01:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 
I call for an archival of this bid. Rak, please stop this. kk?--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:He has two weeks for this bid, like it or not those are the rules. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, via Jerrel Yokotory's bid, precedent has been set showing that bids can be processed and archived before the two week mark. Normally, I'd let it run it's course, but as evident by the vandalism case against him, he's not ready for the job. If no one else gets to it first, I'm archiving this tomorrow, simple as that.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Jerrel's bid did not meet criteria, this meets all criteria. If you won't allow Wan's bid to be archived after a week as per the precedent established by the Jerrel case, you certainly cannot archive it just because you dislike it and have made a decision without even considering the views of the community. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 12:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::No, you delete it. [[A/VB#User:WOOT]] --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::archive not deletion. You can only delete vandalism edits. Feel free to do that but you'd leave the archive rather disjointed and confusing...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::No, you delete, since it's vandalism. It doesn't get archived because it's not an actual bid. If WOOT cares enough, it can go in his userspace or on this talk page like the joke arbitration cases. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 16:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Vandalism, but still technically a valid (if highly unqualified and unwanted by the community bid. Archival unless another sysops steps in.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Not really. Arbitration cases "for the lulz" have been removed before, sometimes to the talk page. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 
== Lack of reasoning in "votes" ==
 
I'm noticing a disturbing lack of reason in user comments. It doesn't matter if it's a vouch, against, abstain, strongly or not, for the "vote" to be of any particular use, there needs to be proper rationale behind it, especially examples. Otherwise it's a pretty (or not) sig and doesn't aid the discussion or 'crats in any meaningful way. Perhaps there should be an extra large notice somewhere for people to see, explaining that this isn't a vote? ([[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions|this would be a good link, by the way]]). --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 22:26, 12 May 2009 (BST)
:Oh come on. The crat's by and large just choose who they'd vouch for. Fair enough, that's what they were elected for but seriously there's nothing most people could sway that would change that view. Anyway the idea that a simply vouch means nothing is bullshit. You had an opinion of each person of the wiki and value what they think, so do the crat/s. Thus a simply vouch or against from user x tells will influence the crat. Anyway we already know which of the users is going to get promoted so, shrug.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:25, 13 May 2009 (BST)
::It's not completely useless, in that it tells them they're are willing to vouch/be against, but as far aiding the discussion or the 'crats, it's not really useful. A lot of people don't seem to recognize that the process isn't a vote. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:20, 13 May 2009 (BST)
:::Certain people don't seem to recognize that this isn't Wikipedia. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 07:43, 14 May 2009 (BST)
::::As Iscariot. The community here is so small that Bureaucrats are elected under the trust that they know the community well. Users who may be considered for promotion should and would (if they had any probability of being accepted) be known by the bureaucrats enough so that the 'crats are already aware of any major issues about the candidate. Basically, if there is an issue so important that a user would have to bring in links as evidence, I like to believe that the bureaucrat would be aware of it already. And even if they don't, the wiki is small enough so almost anything can be found within a few minutes anyway. But my biggest issue is, if evidence becomes law, how would we deal with purged history? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 11:19, 14 May 2009 (BST)
:Have a cry. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 05:39, 13 May 2009 (BST)
:: you mean go cry me a river? [[User:As the dead walk|As the dead walk]] 12:13, 14 May 2009 (BST)
 
==[[User:Haliman111|Haliman111]]==
*'''Against''' - Umbrella relations fiasco. Also, the friend vouch thing doesn't matter because...
 
*# They don't have too many edits all in all, let alone in admin sections so they probably don't even know if you'd be capable to handle it or not.
*# They're your friends and don't say anything other than "He's a good guy and doesn't afraid of anything". No citing of example or anything.
*# Large amounts of vouches don't work because this isn't a vote.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 11:06, 12 May 2009 (BST)
*:Excellent understanding of how it works. N.3 should actually work, I mean, the sysops (who decide in the end) do look at the number of vouches AKA community support right? But yeah, they are not part of the community like you specified in N.1 and N.2. All I am saying, he is better of removing his friends, since asking them in the first place isn't worthy sysops behavior anyway.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 11:19, 12 May 2009 (BST)
*::Of course I understand how it works, I'm a 'crat. I have to help decide if a bid fails or not, remember? :P --<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 11:34, 12 May 2009 (BST)
*:::Just a minor technicality - it's the bureaucrats, not the sysops that do the "deciding," and more weight has always been given to the opinion of experienced users in these things. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:30, 12 May 2009 (BST)
*::::Alright, thanks guys, another thing learned.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 12:08, 12 May 2009 (BST)
*:::::::Lots of people's friends and teammates vote for them. Barhah.com people often vote en bloc -- not because we're ordered to or have some kind of "hive mind", but because we often share similar viewpoints. Same goes for the DEM when they actually use the wiki. A few groups from his group isn't a giant problem, and isn't why I said no. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 22:01, 12 May 2009 (BST)
*'''It's completely pointless to express a preference''' now that a 'crat that will still be serving come decision time has said he's against your candidacy. Promotions cannot occur on a deadlocked decision, so the most you can get is one 'crat for and one against which is no promotion. This is now taking up space. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:44, 12 May 2009 (BST)
:If that would be the case, then it would be utterly pointless to let the community's opinion be heard. Besides, it's the community that chooses and supports the bureaucrats. I think its safe to assume that the bureaucrats listen to the community voice. Cuz if they don't...[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim_s/200809 ...well..] --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 13:09, 12 May 2009 (BST)
::It is now useless for the community's voice to be heard, well done for reading exactly what I put and saying it again. With one 'crat against it's pointless for the other 'crat to be for because it still won't result in promotion. SA's against makes it quite clear he's not going to give assent to this promotion so this still being here is pointless. Your pseudo threat of misconduct is simply laughable, understand the circumstances before you try again, misconduct only works if the person you take to misconduct is disliked by the other sysops, if it was about objective principles can you imagine how many demotions would have occurred after the witchhunt they had to incorrectly remove J3D? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 12:31, 12 May 2009 (BST)
::I meant that its pointless to do then in the first place. Leave promotion deciding completely to the bureaucrats. Also, your mum. --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 13:09, 12 May 2009 (BST)
:::I see Iscariot still has no balls to run for sysop. Hell, if you did I would vote for you just to shut you up.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 05:13, 13 May 2009 (BST)
::::I see you're still being a lying shit and popping back up when it suits you. There are three people I'd accept a nomination from, a serving 'crat, a current candidate and a former sysop that was incorrectly removed. You want me to stand? Go convince one of these to nominate me. Good luck on that. The decision isn't mine, it's theirs', but feel free to continue to sound like a member of TZH in the meantime. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:37, 13 May 2009 (BST)
::::Congratulations Iscariot, you're still a dumb ass. Just because I say my opinion on a bid from the start doesn't mean the person has no chance at being promoted. It just means that if it were being judged on ''my'' merit he wouldn't become a sysops. If the community decides that they want him despite my little reasoning, then he's a sysops. Please, go fail at wiki somewhere else.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 11:24, 13 May 2009 (BST)
:::::So you're actually telling me if we had a mass invasion again and they contributed for two months and then used sheer numbers to  gain a majority through this process you'd promote each and every candidate? No you wouldn't, this is the one area we expect judgement to overrule pure numerical advantage, that's why the community votes you 'crat rather than the position being a rotating one. The community votes you in and expects you to use your own judgement and opinion when ruling on promotions. Sysops aren't moderators but 'crats are implicitly supposed to use their own opinion and judgement to prevent people being meat puppeted into getting the buttons. If this was down to the community there wouldn't be a 'crat veto. Your assent is required in order for this candidate to gain promotion, if you give it even with such reservations as you put forward in your vote then you are failing the community as a 'crat. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:37, 13 May 2009 (BST)
::::::Does negative attention make you feel better?--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 12:33, 13 May 2009 (BST)
:::::::Fine Iscariot, I lied! I haven't been gone because of your pettiness and strange belief that this Wiki is more important that life itself, I have been gone because I was busy losing twenty pounds with NutraSlim®. You know NutraSlim® is powerful and good considering it is packed with the essential minerals and vitamin needed to power your body to the edge, creating rapid and safe weight loss. Diets aren't for everyone, but everyone can enjoy a cup of tea now and then. Why, I lost 20 pounds in the first two months! I guarantee you will lose up to ''fifty'' pounds in five months, or I will give your money back.... Oh wait, where was I. Oh yes that's right, I lied no where and it seems as though Iscariot still has the lovely disposition that the current administration sucks, but is too fucking lazy to fix the place. Even though, for some reason, this place is the most srs one in all existance on the net, where any minuscule human error should be held against those who made it (barring Iscariot of course, due to the fact that he is an almighty god).--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 22:49, 13 May 2009 (BST)
:::::::: Loosely quoting Cyberbob: "Your resistance only makes his penis harder". Perhaps if you spent your time ignoring him (or even dealing with him on a professional level, though I like to trust that's over your head at the best of times) and actually contributed to the wiki, perhaps, with more people like that, this place will become less of a shithole than you would like to believe. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 01:56, 14 May 2009 (BST)
:::::::::Don't fucking ever tell me what to do knowing nothing of the past. I have tried to be civil with him, he hated that more than this. Don't tell me I have done nothing useful on here either. Sure recently I haven't, but in the past I have done a lot of shit. And I think it's hilarious how you think you are so upstanding. What makes you the Overlord of the wiki? What makes you so damn special? I'm not trolling any more than anyone else, I can post what I want as long as it is within the rules. Fact is, if Iscariot dishes out his shit than I shall dish out mine back. End of story.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 02:40, 14 May 2009 (BST)
::::::::::I'm gonna go out on a limb here and propose that your age is less than 15. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 06:07, 14 May 2009 (BST)

Latest revision as of 20:14, 7 October 2019

Archive

Discussion

Moved or continued from the main page. New stuff goes on the bottom.


User:Axe Hack

OK, guys...last time I checked, the nomination does not get moved under Community Discussion until the nominee accepts the bid. I have not accept the bid yet, and have been moving it back to Still Requiring Vouches as the bid has not yet been accepted. I'm not moving it back up a third time now... -_- --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's true, I completely forgot about the accepting bit. Sorry! -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 04:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Piss, or get off the pot -- boxy talkteh rulz 05:19 4 February 2011 (BST)




Jerrel

I'm really amazed at the fact that this hasn't been put up any earlier. While there have been very good reasons to criticise Jerrel in the past, he has massively shaped up ever since.

He hasn't done a single bad edit in months - not in five months, not in six months, no, in friggin' seven months! That beats even Ross' track record, who has been put up on A/VB once during that time.

Apart of that, he is a nice guy who actively fights cussing on the wiki.

What could possibly go wrong by promoting someone like him? -- Spiderzed 15:21, 1 April 2011 (BST)

  • Strong Vouch - I like his campaign cartoon. -- Spiderzed 15:21, 1 April 2011 (BST)
    ha! love the time stamp on this-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking bitch 15:34 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    Rather start to vouch for Jerrel and his anti-cussing campaign, you massively retarded faggot. -- Spiderzed 15:36, 1 April 2011 (BST)
    how about you both go fuck yourselfs twice with thads fat head.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking bitch 15:41 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Against might be an even bigger tool than thad if that's at all possible -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking bitch 15:35 1 April 2011 (UTC)
weak vouch oh yer right. i am massively retarded.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking bitch 15:46 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Vouch - As Spider. ~Vsig.png 15:44, 1 April 2011
  • Incredible Hulkingly Strong Vouch - His sound advice and patience in our many long chats on IRC encouraged me to keep playing UD when I was at my lowest. And, he can fly. I love him. ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD | 16:09, 1 April 2011 (BST)
  • Against - way to biest for his own good --Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:46, 1 April 2011 (BST)
  • Who? er... MULTIPLE ORGASM VOUCH - I heard he was working on a time machine, so everything is kosher. Well, except for the time machine, I heard there was meat next to cheese. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 17:42, 1 April 2011 (BST)
  • Questions
    1. What is different this time from the previous times you've asked for promotion?
    2. I notice on your talk page that you said that you wouldn't run again. What made you change your mind? Asheets 20:04, 1 April 2011 (BST)
      he hasn't acceptced the bid yet any way ash -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking bitch 00:31 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • With a campaign this awesome, how could he possibly steer us wrong‽ Jerrel for Mod Sysop Bureaucrat God! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 01:23, 2 April 2011 (BST)
  • Fucking Against - he "fights cussing on the wiki"? Fuck that! --    : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 08:32, 2 April 2011 (BST)

It's no longer April fools... so that'll be quite enough of that. The user is unlikely to accept, given their last post was in August -- boxy talkteh rulz 09:52 2 April 2011 (BST)

Archived Discussion

I archived the stuff from 2008 to 2010, as it's all painfully out of date. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:33, 8 April 2011 (BST)

I reordered everything too, so now it should make some sense. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:10, 15 April 2011 (BST)
I archived all discussion here to the relevant bids. and also removed vandal bids that were moved here. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 03:55, 17 April 2011 (BST)

The Next Sys-Op Speculation Corner

I'd rather have a team including historically sporadic editors, rather than just me, vapor and spiderzed. [...] As always I encourage more of you to run for sysop. We need fresh blood. Especially since Grim took all the black pudding away

Rosslessness

There hasn't been a single bid since July, and of the 9 remaining ops, not all look that fresh either. Anyone having any candidates in mind? Some I would know off the top of my head:

  • Chief Seagull - Regular bot reporter, knows wiki-code and wiki-procedure.
  • DDR - Op of olde, still popping in all the time.
  • Mazu - Highly active, has with Project:Very Funny involvement with a bigger wiki project, knows wiki-code.
  • Sexualharrison - Wiki vet, regular bot reporter.
  • Thad - Greatest Sys-Op Evar. (j/k)

-- Spiderzed 13:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

lolharrison. Looks like you inadvertently made more then just 1 joke.-- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
riiiiight b/c you were such an effective and well liked sysop. what did you actually do or accomplish with the buttons again? oh right nothing! shouldn't you be off blowing yon and ddr or something? and no thank you. i am flattered but RL and my complete lack of interest in UDwiki policy, and my unhelpful nature makes me an unsuitable candidate. --User:Sexualharrison18:49, 5 February 2012 (bst)
Oi lay off I'm allowed to have my opinions and I liked Thad. All the extra curricular things me and Thad did were purely unconditional. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, I don't really see the need for more sysops. The current crew is mostly capable enough, and it's not like your drowning in work with all the little activity. Fresh blood for the sake of fresh blood alone isn't a real issue, and it certainly shouldn't be used as for an excuse for even lower sysops requirements in case that there is no immediate ideal candidate. - Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It's less of a current problem, more one I see occurring over the next year. I honestly can't see the next generation coming through. still better than giving it to Amazing and Hagnat to run.--Rosslessness 16:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I've seen a few other like Shortround and Gordon who have taken initiative in the past couple of months and who, given time could grow into stellar candidates if they stick around. It's really all about learning policy, which seems daunting at first but isn't too overwhelming once you dive into it. Its really easy to get burned out doing this so if I had a piece of advice for any would-be sysops, its don't get drawn into every single spot of drama you run across. Vandal Banning and Misconduct is really a rather small part of what sysops do but a lot of emphasis seem to be placed there. The wiki is full of holes to be plugged and teh buttons are your thumbs needed to stick in them. ~Vsig.png 16:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We have a sysop team with smallish activity, which is fine because of the minimal workload. Personally I think you're all getting lazy and that small workload can take an embarrassingly long time to complete but it's inconsequential. UDWiki doesn't really need more ops IMO DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DDR. We don't need more Ops. We need less. Let's get rid of the ones with less than 1000 edits since the past 91 days. :P --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
A week and Misanthropy gets warned, sadly  : ( DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
There's more factors than just laziness, likely. Personally, I don't see any harm in promoting qualified users that want to help. RL and other factors will inevitably claim other sysops such as myself (one of the factors I was referring to) and everyone will be glad for it. Decide not to promote now and we'll potentially lose the oppurtunity to have enough hands on deck in times of need. Think of the children! ~Vsig.png 00:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I just think it should be the community that rises to add themselves to the sysop team, not the other way around. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
As a member of the community, you have to be either a masochist or have ulterior motives to want to be a sysop. Checks on your buttons and janitorial bs hardly sounds like fun. --Kirsty Org XIII Alts 00:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I can honestly say I've enjoyed being a sysop. There are times that I don't of course but the majority of the times, yes. To be honest, Urban Dead is a boring game. If it weren't for the meta game and the wiki, I doubt many people would still play. Some prefer the meta game and some prefer the wiki. It takes all types, really. We're all just making Urban Dead less boring in our own individual way. ~Vsig.png 04:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This would be true, in my case it's mostly due to the lack of things to do here meaning I'm devoting more time to places that need it on other parts of the internet. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 00:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Adjusting Guidelines for System Operator Requests

Seeing as I have several of the more influential wikizens here against my current promotion bid for the same reason, being that I'm a bit too new, I'd like to suggest changing the current policy. This is in no way to contest the reactions on my bid, since I completely understand this reason, but rather to prevent people from making bids like mine in the future.

Proposal:

  • 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.

PB&J 08:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, but you see, the reason these outdated systems are in place is yet another way we can determine who is right for the job, because only the people who had the experience would know that these silly restrictions weren't in any way accurate!
But in most seriousness, it could do with a refresh, although we should make it approximate to the limits of most appropriate candidates more than simply following current trends of the 'age' of successful candidates. Badly worded, but what I mean is that if it were completely accurate to past candidates it would probably be a minimum of 12 months, and I don't know if that's a good number, so 6 months is probably a better all-round number even though realistically and historically it's probably a bit too low. A ZOMBIE ANT 09:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Starting to wonder who set it at 2 months in the first place... Anyway, a year will eliminate most "fresh" wikizens: the numbers for UD have been going down for years, and I'm pretty sure that there only a couple thousand (if even) unique people active. Keeping them active longer than a year is a task in itself: the amount and size of groups has gone down quite a bit, taking away an important direct support line. Same goes for the wiki: you've got the veterans here and only one in a couple hundred rookies will make it to that status thanks to stagnating numbers and updates. (the main reason I unstub as much as possible is to make the wiki more "complete", which should keep players interested longer. Same goes for the status reports) PB&J 10:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The 2 months rule is a remnant of earlier days when the wiki was very new I believe, when 2 months and substantial knowledge and respect in other parts of the meta-gaming community would be enough to get someone through. But now the wiki is a bit more autonomous in content and candidate selection, it might as well be updated to reflect as much A ZOMBIE ANT 10:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure It used to be three months,but was changed by a policy discussion. The bid template became standard after I added the vndl template to my first bid, as it seemed a useful link, before we created a specialist one. I would make it standard though. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 13:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
i blame hagnat--User:Sexualharrison14:37, 20 November 2012
Honestly? From not being there but knowing how the rest of the guidelines were made, I would too. A ZOMBIE ANT 15:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A few points of clarification, since there are reasons for things being the way they are. First, changing the number of months to something higher has been proposed in the past and failed. The reason is simple: those guidelines are minimum qualifications, not expectations, so we don't want to exclude an exceptional candidate just because of an arbitrary time limit. If you want to read about unofficial expectations, we have a different page for that. :P

Second, when people say, "Wait a few more months," they generally don't mean that you need to pay your dues by putting in your time before you can be a sysop (though I'll admit some of them do mean that). The phrase is usually code for, "You are still making some newbie mistakes and don't seem to know how everything works yet, but you've demonstrated an ability to learn from your mistakes, so you'll be past that stage soon." Based on some of the mistakes you've made in your own nomination (e.g. not knowing from past promotion bids to use {{bid}} or update the Wiki News and not indenting properly in your responses), I suspect the latter is what most people really mean. As such, altering the promotion guidelines wouldn't actually address the problem that you're facing for future nominations. All it would do is eliminate potential candidates. Aichon 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I feel such a comment is more likely to mean. "Yes your new and you seem keen, but lets see what you're really like before I give you the power to look up my IP and stuff." People create impressions over time, the bid process should reflect that. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 16:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd agree that it can mean that as well. Either way, we can agree that it usually doesn't just mean, "I feel people should be here for X time before they are allowed to be sysops." It usually means that the person has an expectation that has not yet been fulfilled but likely will be with some more time and experience. Aichon 17:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the previous bid, the example and guidelines, and didn't see a single {{bid}} requirement or example, and honestly, indentation as an example? Why? :P And come on, honestly: I've made 2.000 edits, started the biggest non-bot wiki project in a very long time, took part in several discussions, helped new players and reported bots. I've been socially active here ever since the Danger Center project in August, and I can't imagine anyone being ready after two months if I'm not after nearly 4. There have been raised a few valid arguments (like not being active in A/VB), what I don't understand is people going on about small things, like the bid template or indentations. Honest to god, are those the things that really matter? PB&J 19:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
{{bid}} isn't a requirement, it's merely standard practice on any serious bids. The last bid we had was a joke one, so no one bothered to add the template. You probably should have consulted the one before that. And the template and indentation gaffes, by themselves, don't really matter, but people have historically used them as an indication of whether or not someone knows how things work around here (plus, making a mistake of any sort in your nomination is kinda like having a typo in the ad for your business: it doesn't reflect well on you), so while they should not matter, they kinda do to some people. As for the timing, while six months tends to be the earliest that most people get promoted, I'd say that we have plenty of examples of sysops who chose to wait 6 months but could have actually been promoted earlier, had they applied. In your case, I think it's just a matter of lack of opportunity. As Ross said, people like to have seen candidates demonstrate how they'll respond to situations. You really just haven't had a chance to do that, but had you had one, I'd think you'd have a lot more support already. Aichon 20:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorta as Ross. Yeah, minimum requirements yes, but 2 months? No user in history would get in here after existing for two months no matter what they did. Even as a simple minimum requirement it is completely unrealistic A ZOMBIE ANT 00:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm definitely in agreement that the requirement needs to be changed. This is especially true because it gives new users a false sense of when they can move up in the ranks. I know when I arrived, and began hunting around the Administration pages, I was quite surprised that people could become sysops in two months. It gave me the impression that the wiki is, so to speak, "loose" or poorly-governed if such new people are able to gain positions of power. I later got the impression, through watching relatively new people's bids like Shortround's first and now Johnny's, that rather than being poorly-governed, the wiki was instead being deceptive. The first line of information new users get about the wiki is the actual policy, rather than the precedent of individual actions, and thus policy should best reflect the reality of the situation.
If someone brought a proposal for change to a vote (which I would note got a majority last time, barely missing 2/3rds and 20 votes), I would be in complete support. I hope we can get some wiki reforms in this manner going, to reflect in policy the changing assumptions under which we operate here. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 00:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that you guys may not be thinking big enough when you're suggesting that the requirements get pushed up. Head to the talk page for the vote you linked and give it a read, since there's a lot of good discussion there. To summarize, as you increase the requirements you exclude more potential candidates since you're introducing additional bureaucratic barriers, which is the exact opposite of what we want. We actively want to encourage people to apply by removing as many barriers as possible, so we've set the requirements at the minimum point where they should not keep out any viable candidates. But we have no power to control people's expectations, nor can we quantify something that is constantly changing. And codifying high expectations would merely undermine our efforts to get more people applying.
That said, I do think that some clarification could be in order. Personally, I always thought they were clear enough (after all, most jobs come with pre-reqs, and meeting them simply entitles you to apply, not to automatically have the job), but if that's not the idea everyone else gets from them, then we need to fix that. We could point them to past promotions or current sysop activity levels for some of that, or else add some more wording to the explanation to make it clearer, but the clarity issue is separate from increasing the requirements, and should be kept separate. With any change to the requirements, you need to be analyzing what purpose it would be serving, and the purpose you're suggesting for changing them (i.e. adding clarity) can be handled in other ways and is secondary to the primary purpose of encouraging additional candidates to apply.
Also, I wanted to toss in a few quick side notes about various facts. First, that vote may look close at first glance, but it wasn't really, since the Yes side needed an additional 50% more votes than it got. Second, the 20 votes thing has since been rescinded. Third, I did a casual look through some of the old promotions, and without doing any exhaustive searching, I've already found two sysops who were promoted in two months (Xoid and Vantar), neither of which was in the earliest days of the wiki, as well as about a half-dozen more in the 3-5 month range, some not too long ago, so this idea that no one can do it is a bit off-base. I'm fine with 3 months instead of 2, but any more than that and we'd be creating barriers that undermine our bigger goals. Aichon 04:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
If you ask me, adding links to past promotions or add more explanation like you suggested is doing the exact same restrictive thing, with less chance people will notice or read the whole thing than a simple number. Especially so if the number will be there either way. A ZOMBIE ANT 05:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're simply against adding that wording or are for increasing the requirements. If it's the former, I don't follow your logic. Acknowledging the existence of expectations that are outside the control of policy, which is what I'm willing to do, is not the same as officially endorsing them, which is what it sounds like you think I suggested. If it's the latter, then it sounds like you're making an argument along the lines of "the expectations are being used either way, so we may as well codify them". I'll counter that with, "Codify what and to what purpose?"
I hope we can all agree that the goal is to ensure that candidates have proven themselves. Nothing more, nothing less. We have some ideas for how people can do that and how long it generally takes. Those are our expectations. But I think we're all smart enough to acknowledge that if someone can prove themselves in less time or with less edits that there's no reason to hold them back arbitrarily, since that would be bureaucracy for its own sake. Essentially, it wouldn't serve our purpose, since our goal is that someone proves themselves, not that they spend X time doing it, even if it is our expectation based on past experience that it will take them X time for most people.
That's my issue with raising the requirements to match expectations. Just because it took me six months to go from newcomer to sysop candidate doesn't mean we should force everyone else to take six months. And just because I was averaging 660 posts per month when I first became a sysop candidate does not mean we should require that from all candidates, even though it's in line with typical sysop activity rates. We've had candidates get promoted after just two months and with a mere fraction that number of posts, so we know it can be done. The requirements are there to exclude obviously unqualified people, but once you're past that, let people prove themselves whenever and however they can. Aichon 07:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake (or requirements for requirements' sake) is definitely a bad thing. But I think the issue here is one of impression. What impression do the current requirements give to new users? Whether it's that you only need two months' worth of work (which most users definitely need more than) to be a sysop, or (on further inspection) that the requirements as listed are misleading, neither reflects well on the wiki.
To respond to the above and to a point made by Aichon in edit summary, I only use the phrase "move up the ranks" because that is how most new users will likely view the system. Many people begin working on a wiki thinking that, if they work hard enough, at some point they'll get buttons access. Call it the "American Dream" of wikis, if you will. Until they get to know that that's not how we do things around here, that's how they'll conceive of it. My desire for change is (again) rooted in trying to give new wiki-users the clearest and truest first impressions possible. Maybe the best way to do that is to remove the time requirement altogether, and say that a user "must spend time as a wiki editor long enough to build the confidence of the community" or some such. Or maybe there's another alternative. But in any case, the current system fails to give new users the proper impression of the actual (semi-unstated) requirements to be a sysop.
As a side note, if 660 edits a month is "typical" for a sysop, then right now only you and I surpass that, Aichon; maybe Ross and Charles W. and, at a stretch, Johnny Twotoes, are in the neighborhood. The actual average among current sysops is more like 250. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 21:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Wow, hadn't realized I was the most active user. When I was a sysop my first time around, my activity levels was pretty stable around 3500 posts/6 months, but there were also a few sysops ahead of me, so I had figured that those activity levels were still typical. Go figure. Thanks for the fact check. :)
Anyway, as I said, I don't have a problem with clarifying things so that it can provide a better impression, to borrow your term. My only concern is with actually changing the minimum requirements. Clarifying that they are merely the bar you must clear before you can apply, but that they do not, in and of themselves, qualify you for the job is something I could go for. And I like the idea of replacing a hard number with something that gets more at the heart of the matter, like what you suggested. Aichon 21:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
"If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain amount of leeway may be given with the other criteria." Might be a good sentence to include, so the people making the decision understand that it's just guidelines. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 22:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Like Bob says, this is less about the guidelines governing user input more than it is impressions left for new users/users applying for the position. I may be presumptuous in assuming this but it's always been my understanding that people in the community don't use the guidelines when making calls on a candidate, they do it on judgements on whether the user is ready or not- mostly based on the standard of sysop-readiness at the time. No references to Johnny's new-ishness in this current bid, for example, referenced a crit, moreso they say that he is 'not ready'. This happens to all bids that go through the wiki. Also, as Ross concerning people being governed by potentially harsh rules. If someone's that damn good at 2 months it won't matter if they've only been here 2 months and the guidelines specify 6. They should be judged on their exemplary performance in other areas as it already states. A ZOMBIE ANT 07:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

New proposal to adjust Sysop Guidelines

I noticed this while applying to become a sysop but obviously that would have been an atrocious time to propose this.

I think 500 edits in 6 months is simply too much to expect of a user in the wiki's current (and likely permanent) state of activity. As an example, I considered myself a fairly strong candidate for being a sysop and I only had about half that.

I believe the position of sysop is more accessible to our userbase than the 500 edit "requirement" makes it appear to be.

So, as a baseline, I'd like us to consider maybe halving this number to 250 edits in 6 months as an average standard for a sysop candidate.

Thoughts? THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 03:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd definitely endorse this change, but the requirements are defined by policy, so this would require a policy vote. (Hopefully a quick/simple one.) I'd be down to drop it to as little as 150 edits in six months, but boost the minimum time since joining to six months (odd that the two are misaligned currently also — be a member for two months but have X edits in six months), or 150 edits in two months and keep the time since joining as is. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 19:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Also I still agree with most of what I said in the discussion right above this one (hence my ongoing support for six months since joining rather than two). For the record, to update the numbers: The current [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:ActiveUsers&limit=500 average edits per sop per month) is 385, but that's me skewing the stats; if you remove me it's 125. Four or five non-sop users reach 125, and maybe two more are above 84, the number you need to reach 500 edits in six months on average. Halving it to 42 (so, 250 in six months) adds an additional five people. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 19:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch for that insight (and backing it up with some data). I'll take this to A/PD when I have the chance. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 01:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Am I reading that link correctly? I have 275 edits in how many days? 30 doesn't seem right.--Emot-siren.gif LABIA on the INTERNET Emot-siren.gif Dunell Hills Corpseman The Malton Globetrotters#24 - You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 07:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
So, I think "actions" differ from "edits". How? I have no idea. But I think that may be one of the reasons my numbers seem much higher than my actual edits appear to be. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 10:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
This provides a bit more about actual edits over actions - but can only see the total edits and not minors, reverts or monthly. -- The Artist Formerly Known As AudioAttack (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You're right, your actual contributions only lists just under 50. Maybe Active Users is broken again :( Bob Moncrief EBDW! 12:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Would it be better to perhaps look at the quality of the edits made? Like, are the edits improving the wiki in some way, and not just little bits here and there fixing spelling or whatever? I think we should definitely keep it at six months rather than two as that allows a somewhat better judge of character, especially for newer people to the wiki, than what two months would be. I'm all good with reducing the total number of edits, but as long as those edits aren't just made to get the number of edits required. stelar Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge 12:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that's what the vouch system is for. If someone makes X number of edits, but all but a few of them are DangerReports, nobody will be able to vouch since their actual wiki work/skills won't be on display. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 13:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I endorse this too. Still 6, but 250, not 500 --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. Just a note to (I guess) continue this discussion at the new policy proposal talk page, seeing as that's the official channel we have to do to get this changed. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 23:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Twitter is Hiring

"[Executive Is Also A British Army 'Psyops' Solider]" -- we have plenty of (former) psyops here at udwiki. Maybe we can send our resume to them. Either that, or we can apply for work for the British Army --hagnat 08:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Brits don't like hiring Aussies so a few of us are out. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 20:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)