UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Not sure why the discussion from Rev's bid was a subheading of Jerrel, but...)
 
(66 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:


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


==[[User:Jerrel Yokotory]]==
{{vndl|Jerrel Yokotory}}


I'll be straightforward here, I don't think this is going to work, but here goes.<br>
I nominate myself for sysop(I think?)<br>
The reason I believe I should be, is because I am more involved in wiki matters, <br>and I do make edits in good faith.<br>
I may not be the best formating guy, but I'm learning.<br>
Well, that's about it.--{{User:Jerrel Yokotory/signature}}. 03:35, 13 July 2010 (BST)
===Campaign statement===
{| class="wikitable sortable plainlinks"
|+ Jerrel Sysop Campaign Assets
! № !! Title !! Content
|-
! 00001
! Logo
| [[Image:Expect_us_2.png‎ |"really cool airborne guy"]]
|-
! 00002
! Theme
| [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ "Never Gunna give you up" by Rick Astley]
<!-- Replaced Asset
|-
! 00003
! Slogan
| ''"Hell is my Helmet."''
-->
|-
! 00004
! Slogan
| ''"Hell is my Helmet."''
|-
! 00005
! The Truth
| Jerrel is awesome, and that's the truth!-anomoyus
|}
:''Authorised by --{{User:Jerrel Yokotory/signature}}. 03:35, 13 July 2010 (BST)''
{{squote|"Ask not what you can do for Jerrel, Ask what Jerrel can do for you"|Jerrel}}
===Discussion===
*'''Against''' - The simple fact that you have been unable to read this page and place your request in the right header is a striking example of why you're just not qualified to have buttons and responsibilities that I frankly don't believe you'll be capable of coping with. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 03:40, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*:There's buttons! Oh I love buttons. No, I know what it's like to be in control. I'm the leader of the 82nd, remember? And I run and change our forum. It's just wiki formatting I'm having trouble with.--{{User:Jerrel Yokotory/signature}}. 04:05, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*::So why should we give you administrative powers when you're not ready for them? Your enthusiasm exists, but it's just not backed up by any actual presence in the admin sections. Chime in on deletion requests, discuss community events, and so on, and try to pick up the technical know-how around the wiki - perhaps find a personal project you can use to gain these skills, such as picking up tabling and alignment with some group templates, or understanding redirects by fixing any extraneous ones you encounter, that kind of thing. While it's true that nothing lights a fire under your ass quite like the heavy spotlight of responsibility, it's always been necessary to have sufficient grounding in the actual workings of the system before being put in a position of power within it. At present, I just don't feel that you'll be able to achieve enough with the buttons, and given that the workload on the current team is incredibly light, I feel that now is a time where any promotions taking place should really only be handed to those with a genuine knack for wiki coding and operation, who might make a difference on the team. I don't think you're there yet, by quite a bit, but it's not a gap you can't recoup if you put the effort into it. {{Tiny|tl;dr lurk less contribute moar}} {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 04:13, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*:::Understood. You know, I keep on getting more reasons why I shouldn't be a sysop. Is there one why I ''Should'' be one?--{{User:Jerrel Yokotory/signature}}. 04:22, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*::::No, there isn't {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 06:09, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' There's nothing wrong with trying, but you're not ready yet. -{{User:Poodle of doom/sig 2}} 03:43, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - I disagree with Poodle. This is a glaring example of what's wrong with trying. --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 03:54, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - While you may be learning still, you haven't reached a point of competency in wiki matters (Misanthropy's example being another point in case). Couple that with the fact that <s>we have to go back over a year and a half before we reach 500 edits for you</s> you don't even have 250 edits in over a year and a half, that you don't seem to be a regular contributor to any sort of project or maintenance around here (which demonstrates your lack of "prior interest in maintaining the community"), that you don't have a real presence on the admin pages where we can get to know you and your thought processes, and that you seem prone to stuff like [[Category_talk:Historical_Groups/FailedArchive#101st_Airborne_Unit|this]] (see the stuff under jorm's vote, #22 Against) and [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Historical_Voting_Time_Limit#No.|this]] (a case of misdirected antagonism due to a misreading of the policy being discussed), and I'm afraid I can't support you. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 04:10, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*:Understood. I'm just, let's say, ''Defensive'' is all.--{{User:Jerrel Yokotory/signature}}. 04:22, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - lol {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 05:15, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - Read those guidelines up above, and then do that. Get a wiki-project.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 07:57, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*:Does not posting count as a wiki-project because if so I have just the thing for him {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 08:05, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*'''Abstain''' - I'm not going to bother saying what others already mentioned above. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 11:05, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - Needs more activity--{{User:Michaleson/sig}} 11:25, 13 July 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - A bit overkill, but.. [[User:Technical Pacifist|Technical Pacifist]] 11:32, 13 July 2010 (BST)


==[[User:Axe Hack]]==
==[[User:Axe Hack]]==
Line 75: Line 18:
: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>
: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>


==[[User:Spiderzed]]==
*::::::::::Onoz meet pupptz. Just because I stick up for someone when you sling mud wrongly, does not mean I'm hounding anyone, especially when I'm responding to you doing something that's pretty much what you've just accused me of. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 20:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Sorry, when did anybody even vaguely mention meatpuppetry. This is about my opinion on a sysop candidate, and the fact that whenever i put forward an opinion you don't like, you spew out hundreds of characters of attack. Get a life.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 21:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*::::::::::::I took the liberty to take this to the talk page, as it seemed to be more about the personal feud between two third-parties, and to 0% about the actual bid. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Makes sense to me.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 22:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


As "victim" of said flaming, I'll make a short remark: Stupid comments aimed at offending me by guys like Harrison and Zombielord is fine. If they want to look idiots than that's their choice. I'll either ignore or mock them, since taking them seriously isn't worth it. That said, your comment (looking at you Spider) where you basically go through the possibilities of an early demotion and actually encourage him to continue his flaming isn't something I take to good-faith :/. His question was retarded, don't start taking it seriously unless you're fine with his tone.


Oh, despite your sarcastic remark at this, I actually would consider a demotion or early re-evaluation if people were to express that I wasn't doing my job right. I stated this at both my bids, since I do consider community support to be of vital importance when being 'Op. I think Yonn makes a good point, and I hope you provide me your stand on the points I raised. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span> 22:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:Calling him a friend would probably go too far, but I'm definitively on friendly terms with Harisson, so I've viewed it as the right thing to do to answer his question.
:It should be blatant that both us aren't fans of your bid, and at least I'm still under the impression that you primarily wanted to put the title into your pocket without the workload that is usually expected from an op. If you disprove us on the job, all the better (I'd rather have another useful op to enhance the wiki and be proven wrong, than to have a lazy or useless op and be proven right). But as of now, I still have my doubts, and especially doubt that you'd be the type to consider an early demotion/RE if it would be sensible.
:(On an unrelated note, this discussion should be on the actual bid as it concerns it, not on the talk page. What was moved here was the continuing personal banter between Yon and Mis, not Yon's original objection and Mis' replies that concern it directly.) --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 23:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::I wasn't asking about my bid. I was asking if you think encouraging flaming is a good idea. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span> 07:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:::As long as no rules get broken, people are free to do what they want on UDWiki. If someone asks a rules question, I answer it to the best of my ability. I consider the job of an op as that of a public service go-to man (whether on wiki-coding, rules or whatever else), not to act as a judge or moderator outside of strictly defined administrative processes as A/VB or A/PM. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 14:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I personally disagree. In the strictest sense of the word, you're right, people can say whatever they want as long as it confines within the rules. However, just because there isn't a civility policy is no reason for being uncivil. While it's not a task for Sysops (as they are indeed not Moderators) I still believe flaming should be discouraged, for the sake of a more mature and friendly community. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span> 16:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::Also, harassment is a bannable offence - Iscariot recieved a weeks ban for it back in June 2009, iirc.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 16:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::Well that was more a case of abusing admin pages maliciously. Too many bullshit A/M or A/VB cases will get you escalated, general hostility will not, as a general rule of thumb. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 19:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Iscariot did receive an escalation for overall hostility, but that was indeed more of an exception. There definitely is a line that you can cross, but that would be extreme situations. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span> 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::It was a very dodgy case in general, but I think others have been done for continued harassment against specific targets. I'll have a delve in to archives at some time, because a list of precedents is obviously such a bad idea.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::I know it make VERY little difference but just in case it's worth mentioning, the week ban should have been for 24 hours. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 22:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::That it was.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 22:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Karek might have mentioned harassment, but [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_06#User:Iscariot|the case]] seemed rather to be about flooding A/M and A/VB, as Mis already pointed out (especially as the same action by SA was reported to both A/M and A/VB). Plus, that case generally wasn't the greatest hour of sysopping the wiki has ever seen, looking alone at the double standard about the sigs, so it should only be used as precedent when no other straw can be grabbed.<br>Spamming admin pages is a different thing than harassment (as most recently seen in the Cornholioo cases, where posting on his talk page against his notice wasn't vandalism (at least not without arbies backing it up), but him spamming admin pages with anti-semitic garbage was).<br>As for flaming, I'm not anyone's nanny. The users here are either grown up or at least spoiled beyond my help, so I don't see the point in making them behave. Unless their behaviour disrupts the wiki or the rules, which is already well covered by A/VB or arbies.<br>tl;dr: When Harisson is mean to you, don't come crying to me because I carry a badge and should use "mah authoritee" to discourage flaming. Take it instead to arbies and get him out of your hair (or escalated when he uses your talk page). That has always been the standard way to deal with such drama. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 22:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Actually it was more of a combination of the two and isn't an applicable precedent for most cases. Specifically Iscariot had been, over the course of about 2 years frequently making misconduct cases and A/VB cases over literally every little thing targeted at specific sysops whom he didn't like, this can be seen in links coming from mine or SA's pages to A/VB easiest. In this specific case he went so far as to, after getting a unanimous ruling of Not Vandalism, report SA to A/M for exactly the same thing to try and get a different result/overturn the previous ruling. It was clearly an agenda against the user and simply an attempt to get him escalated for the sake of getting him escalated. It wasn't particularly questionable beyond the perma-ban attempt which is what all of the drama largely related to it was over and, as the reporter I'll gladly admit, far beyond the scope of the case. It was shitting up the admin pages like he was prone to but it was also because he was prone to do it in a harassment manner and is a precedent for harassment reporting escalation ''not'' spamming admin pages escalation should anyone ever try to tell you otherwise. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 14:19, 2 April 2011 (BST)
:Meatpuppets? Unwarranted confidence votes? What is this fatheaded nonsense? Spiderzed is cautious, perceptive (enough to catch sneaky zergs who don't want to be caught), and thinks before he types. Mis is only two of those things, and look where he is. Eh's a pretty cool guy and doesn't afraid of anything. Also, Free Iscariot. And furthermore: Ban Harrison. --{{User:DT/Signature}} 04:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
::fuck you DT. and cry me a river mistergamer. damnit i was traveling and didn't notice any of 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>]] 12:30 2 April 2011 (UTC)</small>


==[[User:Ashley_Valentine|DevilAsh]]==
Nice comeback man! Keep it up, you'll be a great wiki member in no time. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span> 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:This is a discussion point and so, not suitable for the main page. {{User:Ashley Valentine/sig}} 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


==Revenant==
 
*'''question''' - what's changed since your last bid? not a lot by the looks of it. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 02:08, 29 March 2011 (BST)
*:I am active on the wiki, have the free time to work on wiki projects, and have not been nominated as a joke by Grim. As I said in my bid above. Got any questions I haven't already answered? Oh, and I've now got mobile internets access, so I can edit and (assuming this bid goes well) psyop while out, too. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 03:13, 29 March 2011 (BST)
*::If you want to use your free time helping out the UD community, why do you have to be an op? To be honest and not as offensive as I probably sound, the only reason that springs to mind is that there's some sort of lol quota on a forum somewhere which needs meeting. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 04:17, 29 March 2011 (BST)
*:::That's also on the to-do list, TBH. And I'll respond more fully when I get the chance, just heading out the door ATM. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 04:26, 29 March 2011 (BST)
*::::That's cool, no hurry. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 05:19, 29 March 2011 (BST)
*:::::Also, I have another question. How come when you (and other non-'wiki addicts', if you're cool speaking on their behalf) run for promotion, you feel the need to meatpuppet the crap out of the bid? Before anyone judges please note I'm of course not against meatpuppeting, nor for it, I'm just curious why you do it when A/PM is a system that is designed to diametrically oppose the influence of meatpuppets? -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 12:31, 29 March 2011 (BST)
*::::::Eh, none of my vouches were meatpuppets, except for the one that couldn't read and voted me by mistake. Or, if they were puppets then I had no knowledge of it. {{User:Ashley Valentine/sig}} 14:34, 29 March 2011 (BST)
*::::::"Meatpuppet" is such an ugly word. This may come as a shock to you, but the wiki is hardly the centre of the UD-verse. In fact, most people play quite happily without consulting it much if at all. Instead, I would say that I am attempting to reach out to the broader Urban Dead community and encourage participation from different demographics. In fact, I can name at least one person who has returned from at least ~3 years of absence due to my linking this on Facebook. How can that be a bad thing? {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 15:13, 29 March 2011 (BST)
*:::::::So basically meatpuppet is an ugly word, but you basically deconstruct your actions as getting people who don't use the wiki much at all but know what it is, to bring support to your bid where they would otherwise be spending that time (for example ~3 years) away from the wiki? Doesn't sound like meatpuppeting at all. You didn't even answer my question either? -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 22:27, 29 March 2011 (BST)
*::::::::I don't think he voted for me – he can't stand the wiki – just started playing again. Also, like I said, UD community and UD Wiki community have overlap but are by no means identical. If you only post on the wiki you disenfranchise those who do not spend much time on here but still have an interest in favour of the more vocal minority. Also, I thought I sorta answered it in one of my other responses below? {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 22:59, 29 March 2011 (BST)
*:::::::::Wait, so the reason you get people here in hordes is not to dogpile your promotions bid, but to extend other metagaming media to ud players who don't wiki much? -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 04:26, 30 March 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::Have you ever thought that there's a ''reason'' a lot of people avoid the wiki like the plague? These people know me and what I stand for. I'm not telling them what to write, as I'm sure you can see. I'd point to Toast's Against as an example but he's busy avoiding the place like despite my encouragement. {{grr}} {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 05:02, 30 March 2011 (BST)
*:::::::::::I couldn't care less about why people avoid the wiki TBH. I would like for his place to be used lots, and I am always trying to help out people who have a keen interest in the place where I can, but if people don't come here that's just how it is. Having you ask them once every month to come here and support someone/thing they don't care about won't improve the situation, lest you being promoted. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 05:50, 30 March 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::::Yes, [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Category_talk%3AHistorical_Groups&diff=1865157&oldid=1865156 I can] see [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKeira_Bambini&diff=1865473&oldid=1865280 that]… {{rolleyes}} {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 01:24, 31 March 2011 (BST)
*:::::::::::::I said people who have a keen interest in the place, not people who come here cause they're asked and fail the ''one'' thing they have to do right to have their vote counted. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 07:39, 31 March 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::::::I have no idea who that is and as far as I know I've never spoken to them before. <small>(Sorry if you're someone I should know, Keira!)</small> I was just being helpful and friendly to someone who clearly has not done much wiki-ing before but is just as clearly interested. You know, ''serving the wiki community'', like being a sysop is supposed to be about. :) {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 22:27, 31 March 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::::::Wow. So, you just went and undid all my effort to help that person out because you want to swing the vote your way? <small>(See what I'm doing right here, casting aspersions on your motives? The difference is, I think you genuinely believe it when you do it.)</small> That's, uh… that's something, right there. {{rolleyes}} {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 23:18, 31 March 2011 (BST)
*:::::::::::::::Are you capable of reading rules? The rules say the only valid votes MUST end with a four tilde timestamp. If they can't manage that, then it's illegitimate. You cannot also replace it with anything that will suffice a four-tilde timestamp done by the user who is making the vote. If I voted for Liberal last week, by smearing my shit all over the ballot paper, would it have counted if you just wiped the shit away and place the vote I wanted yourself? Nooooo. And you'll also notice the rules that it says "''it '''will''' be stricken by a moderator''". It is my duty, I have to do it to every instance of illegal signage and I ''do''- not just to ones that don't vote the same way I do (check the history you idiotic bellend). Couldn't give less of a shit if CK got in. But on that topic, seriously? Am I a devil because I do my job and it stops a vote going against what I voted? Does it make me a saint if they voted the same way then? Holy shit your idea of bias is as childish as Cybebob's. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 02:15, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*:::::::::::::::::''I'' can read; can ''you''? I repeat: '''[[Category talk:Historical Groups#Obtaining_Historical_Status|show me in the rules]].''' (Hint: It's not there.) {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 03:33, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::::::::::[[:Template:HistoricalVotingRules]] --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 03:41, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*:::::::::::::::::::Thank you, [[User:TripleU|TripleU]], for having actually the decency to ''provide a fucking link'' instead of vague references. {{grr}} Don't know how I missed that – well, it's not in the rules at the top, must've skimmed past – but it's stupid bureaucratic bullshit and needs to be changed. I'll add that to the to-do list. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:42, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::::::::::::Also, emailed the user in question as a courtesy, since not everyone has talk page notifications. As she ''did'' go to the effort of voting, it'd be a shame to see that go to waste because of obsession with red tape. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:44, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*:::::::::::::::::::::Sorry for thinking "As is said in the rulebox to the right of your vote" is not good enough for something so obvious -.- -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 12:43, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::::::::::::::I see nothing in the rules for conducting voting <small>(at the top of the page, which I linked)</small> which requires that template be displayed, but I already conceded this point. PROTIP: Learn to stop arguing after you've won; nobody likes a sore winner. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 01:32, 2 April 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::::::::::-___________________________- -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 05:48, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::It means that a very very large part of the player base knows and supports Revenant and is willing to vouch for him. Stop trying to make out like being respected by most/a large part of the game community means he's not trustworthy, it's shit and it's a part of how the wiki's lost the community. I mean shit, the guy is a mod on all four major metagame boards somehow and you think he's untrustworthy? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:09, 30 March 2011 (BST)
*:::::::::::I ctrl+f'd this entire conversation and didn't find the word "trust" or "untrustworthy" in any of the above dialogue, so I don't know what you're talking about. Didn't find Karek either, odd. Can he be trusted? Why not. Will he be able to do the job properly? Eeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhh. The only time I've seen Revenant deal with rules and policy on this wiki he's tried appallingly to just rules-lawyer his way through the argument to get his way. Granted, sometimes he stands down if told/proven/argued to be wrong. But some times, he [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_07#User:Revenant|chucks colossal shitties]], then creates [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Grim s (2)|drama across multiple admin pages]] just incase the fallout wasn't crap enough, let alone the crying we had to read when he wanted to be ''de''escalated too. Ugh. Given, I haven't had him act like this since, but given a new conflict of interest come along I won't hold my breath for a changed man, sorry Rev. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 05:47, 30 March 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::::You quoted me in your ruling for that case and let me tell you, there was nothing wrong or drama-full about his arguments there. They actually bring up some good points that a more rationally minded group probably could have used for a discussion on the extensions of specific vandalism rules and precedents and their relevance to blatantly meta roleplaying. In that case specifically he was escalated for something that we normally always used for people trying to recruit for groups without any basis as to interest not users who have entered into a discussion or vote being swayed to change it(which we've actually always overlooked when done on promotions, policy, etc. when the user had already voted and thus shown involvement in discussion). Well that and claiming that a blatant joke about a user that would never ever ever be repromoted or, probably, unbanned being nominated for promotion as a sysop. That's crap and no more vandalism, drama mongering, or bad judgement than, say, a promotion attempt by a recently escalated vandal who was involved in a poorly handled sysop ruling that partially mocks the reasons for one of the sysops involved. The only drama in either of those is generated largely by the user who didn't assume good faith or good humor and when that's relevant to the reason why he would be beneficial to the team(he doesn't start at the assumption that all rules violations are vandalism) that's nothing but a good reason to promote him. It's like if we'd denied promoting you because you knew and were involved in some of the dramas of Jed and Nallan simply because we'd decided that you're magically incapable of understanding or enforcing rules. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:03, 30 March 2011 (BST)
*:::::::::::::The arguments behind that case are irrelevant in this context (though I feel forced to, for the 4000th time, discredit 80% of the personal shit you just said on the basis of the ''sysop team are the ones that ruled on the case rather than the one man who brought it there and didn't rule''). If he thinks he's wrong there are more mature ways to deal with it than immature. He hit about 75% of the immature ways head on. If you're going to butt in with conversations and try and argue over the subsequent tangents can you please stop and address some of the things I said? Otherwise please just deal with this elsewhere like my talk or talk:A/PM or let Revenant deal with it here himself. Please. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 06:25, 30 March 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::::::How have I not done that, you brought up that discussion as immature and drama mongering because as an involved party, and the person who brought the case, you viewed it as such. You brought it up as your reason for why you feel he can't do the job. You brought up the Grim case as him drama mongering even, I pointed out it wasn't drama but a very blatant joke. You brought up claims of him meatpuppeting, I pointed out that he's trusted by these communities and people being willing to vouch for him from communities he's moderated is the exact opposite of meatpuppeting and is the point of this page. You brought up concerns about his ability to do the job because of these cases, I pointed out that we had the same concerns about you but faith enough that you knew the rules and had a valuable viewpoint that we, while not always in agreement with, thought would be a useful contribution to the administrative discussion. Put all of the personal crap aside, he's a good levelheaded user that's shown himself trusted by the community and able to work with diverse groups of the playerbase quite amicably, that alone should be reason enough.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:38, 30 March 2011 (BST)
*:::::::::::::::How can I possibly be the biased one when you attempt to discredit the ENTIRE event as ''not'' drama mongering (or, stupider yet, not ''drama at all'') because it was in good humour? What? Why the hell do you think I'm not going to promote him just because I think/know he'll do a shit job? Why the fuck are you still even here, can you go 10 contribs without trying to butt heads with me via walls of texts over shit that has nothing to do with you? Are you going to go for promotions now so you can just have your say via one bolded word and be done with it, rather than waste my time with your fucking arguing? Holy fucking god Karek.
*:::::::::::::::Back onto the topic, I don't think you have the right definition of meatpuppet to work off. Google it, if Rev recruited them simply for this function it is most definitely meatpuppetting. Again, I'm pretty indifferent to whether he does it or not (I am one of the two people on this wiki who has the power to nullify every single one of them if I so wished and no that is not a threat or prediction of my future actions so don't bother complaining about it), I was just curious as to why he should bother doing it, then tried to make a point of how hollow his excuse was and its righteousness. Again, to re-iterate, if they wouldn't have given input on this without a nudge from Revenant, it's meatpuppeting, regardless of good faith by the users or their genuinity (both of which, I agree with you, are genuine). I also discussed the drama mongering above too so I guess I'm done with this reply. awaiting another 1,900 characters of time waste -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 06:51, 30 March 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::::::::I guess the standard for claiming I'm around just to butt heads with someone has gotten pretty small if all it takes these days is to try and have a discussion relevant to one A/VB case about how it was dealt with and one promotions bid about how you're distorting his actions with your views of them/how he's shown community trust. It's actually kinda sad really, there was a time where you were at least sorta reasonable enough to listen to someone outside your head. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 07:06, 30 March 2011 (BST)
*:::::::::::::::::You're breakin my heart. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 07:17, 30 March 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::::::::::For the record, DDR, I still consider that a bullshit call and a glaring example of assuming bad faith when none was intended. Another reason I am making this bid is I think we could use some more considered opinions on the sysop team with experience in a broader variety of wiki (and other) environments who realise just how hostile and insular this environment is. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 22:27, 31 March 2011 (BST)
*:::::::::::::::::::You mean more people to bail out the cool klub? As if the team hadn't become a drama fest with all the newbies coming in already -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 02:21, 1 April 2011 (BST)
*::::::::::::::::::::The only “cool klub” I can think of on this wiki is your mates, “[[2 Cool]]”, but I'm guessing you meant something else seeing as I haven't seem them around for a while. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:42, 1 April 2011 (BST)


==[[User:Jerrel Yokotory|Jerrel]]==
==[[User:Jerrel Yokotory|Jerrel]]==
Line 201: Line 81:
==Archived Discussion==
==Archived Discussion==
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 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)
==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)
: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>
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)
== 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.
:<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>
{{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)
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
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)
== 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 [[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 believe the position of sysop ''is'' more accessible to our userbase than the 500 edit "requirement" makes it appear to be.


==[[User:WOOT|Rakuen]]==
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.
{{bid|WOOT|PM}}


Alright. Swag out the ass. I'm the man, fuck Chico. Got a G in my wallet, all you got left is your ego. Think about it for a second. I'm the shit, I'm the boss like Michael Scott. Y'all is just Phyllis.  
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)


Vote for me dogs. #swag
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)


Didn't think of me as Spiderman, but now I'm spittin venom.
== Twitter is Hiring ==
--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 06:32, 10 April 2011 (BST)


*'''Vouch''' - DOPENESS.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 06:32, 10 April 2011 (BST)
"[[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)
*'''Vouch''' - WINNING --[[User:Kouchpotato|Kouchpotato]] <sup>[[User_talk:kouchpotato| T]]</sup> 06:36, 10 April 2011 (BST)
:Brits don't like hiring Aussies so a few of us are out. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 20:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Vouch''' - :D --[[User:Irishmen|Irishmen]] 06:40, 10 April 2011 (BST)
*'''Vouch''' - WINNING --{{User:Goofy Mccoy/sig}} 06:43, 10 April 2011 (BST)
*<s>'''Vouch''' - I'm a fucking walking paradox. No I'm not. --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 06:48, 10 April 2011 (BST)</s>
*'''Rakky Rakky Rakky!''' Oi oi oi! {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 08:03, 10 April 2011 (BST)
*'''Sigh''' - L'pointless vandalisms.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 11:04, 10 April 2011 (BST)
*:I dont see any vandalism mister butthurt--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 11:25, 10 April 2011 (BST)
*'''FAECES and PENIS -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 11:39, 10 April 2011 (BST)''''
*'''SPAM''' Not funny enough for a lolz vouch and not (quite) sad enough for a sympathy fuck. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:15, 10 April 2011 (BST)
*:Its not a joke. I'm the solution this shithole needs.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 19:35, 10 April 2011 (BST)
*'''SPAM''' as honest. woot just give it a rest already. --<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>]] 13:08 10 April 2011 (UTC)</small>
*:Your sig is fucking horrible and you should feel bad. Also like, your opinion man. --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 19:35, 10 April 2011 (BST)
*::whateverz enjoy yo' mouths ban ya dumb ass troll.--<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>]] 20:36 10 April 2011 (UTC)</small>
*'''#Tigerblood''' --[[User:Karloth_vois|Karloth Vois]] <sup>[[¯\(°_o)/¯]]</sup> 19:02, 10 April 2011 (BST)
*'''Spam''' Not funny enough. [[User:Smyg|Smyg]] 19:20, 10 April 2011 (BST)
*:Who the fuck are you?{{unsigned|WOOT}}
*'''Vouch''' - Direct to Crat, do not pass go, do not collect 200 faggotry dollars.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 20:05, 10 April 2011 (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! -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 04:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Piss, or get off the pot -- boxy talk • teh rulz 05:19 4 February 2011 (BST)




Jerrel

Jerrel Sysop Campaign Assets
№ Title Content
00001 Logo "we don't know either"
00002 Theme "You Haven't Seen The Last Of Me" by Jer (born Jerrelyn Sarkisian)
09453 Personal quote "I may not be the best formating guy, but I'm learning."
00174 Campaign Cartoon "The Tom and Jerrel Show"
Realistic depiction of Jerrel's constant conflict with the downpressing 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.

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! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 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 talk • teh 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. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 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 EBD•W! 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 EBD•W! 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 EBD•W! 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 EBD•W! 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 EBD•W! 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 EBD•W! 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)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Promotions&oldid=2383755"