UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions

Archive

• Archive1 - ??? - Jan 2007
• Archive2 - Feb - Oct 2007
• Archive3 - Oct 2007 - Apr 2008

Discussion

Tallies

I think we should agree not to post those running tallies, given that sysop promotions are not votes, but rather requests for users opinions/reasons for support or not. The tallies give the impression that it's a vote -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:23 24 July 2008 (BST)

Not to mention that they are damn annoying.--Karek^maps?! 10:26, 24 July 2008 (BST)

agreed. although it means i have nowhere to use my new found skill of 5 tildes....--xoxo 10:28, 24 July 2008 (BST)

I agree aswell. It should be done asap... DanceDanceRevolution 13:29, 24 July 2008 (BST)

OK, I'm moving the tally from the current bid here -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:11 26 July 2008 (BST)

The bid relevant portion has been moved to the bid archive.--Karek^maps?! 02:55, 31 July 2008 (BST)

Individual Pages per Promotion

Wouldnt it be better to deal with each promotion bid in an individual page, like we discuss new policies and arbitration cases on their own pages ? The promotion are gonna to be archived in an individual page in the end, and that way we can keep any discussion related to that case in it's own talk page. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:20, 22 April 2008 (BST)

As long as they all link from the current page in the same manner as suggestions do then it sounds like a good idea to me. It would keep things neater, thing is though is it worth making a change for something that isn't exactly an everyday event? --Honestmistake 14:59, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I was thinking about something like what i made in the arbitration page. The user requesting a promotion uses a template stuff, with a link to it's bid, the date he asked for the promotion and when it's supposed to be over (14 days since its beginning) and the status of the bid (open, succesful, unsuccesful, withdraw, etc)... then in the individual page we could have something like in the suggestions, with a place reserved for the user to state his reasons to be promoted, a place for people to vouch him, and a section explaining how promotion works (the thing about it not being a vote, but a discussion on the merits of a user to be promoted) and the duties of a sysop. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:07, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I'd say it can't hurt to try it out. Makes the page less spammy with multiple bids.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 15:59, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Given that there are usually only a handful of promotions at a time, is this necessary? Still, having separate promotion pages would entail separate promotion talk pages, which is where the real editing mess is. Also, this would definitely make archiving easier. --Kid sinister 16:35, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Yeah, kid sinister has the right idea: this isn't so much good because it splits up the main page but for splitting up the talk page. Grarr 17:44, 22 April 2008 (BST)

No, the Arbitration system sucks for ease of following now.--Karek^maps?! 20:12, 22 April 2008 (BST)

we can see how this works out next time someone request a promotion... this will help a lot on the rare occasions where more than one user asks for a promotion... it was a pain to follow the promotion bids from akule and axe, imho. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:33, 23 April 2008 (BST)

And if you're only following one then it's much less annoying, too. Grarr 17:31, 23 April 2008 (BST)

Yes, I think it would be easier that way. --Pdeq^Talk* 03:42, 24 April 2008 (BST)

No. Whilst I hated to go through all the scrolling of unnecessary comments at A/A in the past, votes on the Promotion sections are much more meaningful and altogether have a more substantial "real content per line" ratio, thus making having to browse through more pages in order to get to vote more of a bother than an actual improvement. This, combined with the fact that most Promotion requests are placed one at a time, will increase instead of reducing the actual scrolling per vote one wants to place. --Starplatinum 06:16, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Speaking of streamlining promotion bids, was there ever a particular reason why there weren't defined sections for vouches, againsts, and abstains/questions? It would seem easier to take tallies that way. I just never recalled it ever being done that way, tis why I ask.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 11:14, 24 April 2008 (BST)

I presume it's something to do with Promotions not being a vote, which results in tallies being somewhat irrelevant. Or then it's just plain laziness. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:26, 24 April 2008 (BST)

The first reason, because it's not a vote. After the first 3 vouches it's purely about the opinions of people. A strong opinion in favor or against from an active user counts for more then a weak vouch or against by an inactive user. It's not digital, it's gradual. To sort them would introduce a more firm diversion between for and agianst then there usually is.-- Vista  +1  11:29, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Post implementation

I'm sorry but, I already hate this system with a passion. It's done nothing but complicate things for everyone involved and actually goes so far as to remove the rules and guidelines as for what to look for in a candidate and how to comment.--Karek^maps?! 15:09, 29 April 2008 (BST)

d'uh, then be bold and add them instead of complaining. They are already in a template. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:11, 29 April 2008 (BST)

d'uh, if that was the only problem that probably would have been what I did. This system inconveniences everyone for the sake of "neatness" when the previous system has worked out fine.--Karek^maps?! 15:18, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Now I've got to add another page to my watchlist every time someone puts themself forward? Na, when it's such an underused page as promotions, it's not worth the effort. It's just as easy to archive the bid to a separate page after the bid is finished as it is to do it at the begining -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:53 29 April 2008 (BST)

Ditto. --Starplatinum 19:25, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Please don't make individual pages for promotions in the future -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:46 17 May 2008 (BST)

Agree. This was annoying. I didnt even find out suicidal angel had replied to me until 5 minutes ago (A bit late for a further reply methinks), when i have both promotions and this talk page on my watch list. Keep em here. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:59, 17 May 2008 (BST)

As the box. I hated having to go to the promo page, and then clicking on another link (with dead internets might I add) just to see how my bid goes. And really Grim? I just thought you were too busy to reply to me. Thats sad. Continue it again some other time?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:14, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Well, we'd never find it difficult without trying. I kind of agree with all that has been said about this, and don't further support this. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:04, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Random changing of promotions

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

You appear to have removed the ability for one user to nominate another one, haven't you? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I still see this "Note that if a person is nominated by another user, the candidate in question should note their acceptance of the nomination". Is that what you're talking about?--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was writting this on the guidelines talk page, but i guess its better in here.

I have made these changes to the guidelines (see what changed here) to prevent cases such as lithedarkangel's promotion and to prevent a user from spamming the promotion pages and wiki news with nominations to himself or users who are not interested in the task. A user can still be nominated by others, but the nominating user must gather the 3 vouches before making the nomination here.

The guidelines already said that a user should gather the vouches before moving his candidacy into community discussion. The changes made simply tell them to do so outside this page, since gathering the vouches HERE is already having a nomination under community discussion. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should have consulted others before changing it?--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that doesn't entirely make sense. You keep the clause about wanting to be a sysop, yet the only people who can post a promotion bid now ARE those who want to be a sop.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

it does make sense: you gather the vouches for a user, ask if he is interested, and then post the nomination here. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You can compare this with how suggestions are made in Dev Suggestions before hitting the main page. Its to work on it and see if there is a chance of it actually be approved. And since this are only guidelines, you are not supposed to follow it by the letter and you can simply ignore the entire thing. How many times must i repeat myself about this ? --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense. "Desire to become a System Operator. We define this simply as indicating in the candidate's request their desire for the position (Note that if a person is nominated by another user, the candidate in question should note their acceptance of the nomination)." By implementing a rule change that they must seek out votes and then personally apply on promotions for the position, the entire quoted section is pointless. The process itself is the desire to become a sop. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

which "rule" are you talking about? oic, you are talking about a guideline... which can be IGNORED --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to everyone who's had an escalation for breaking point 10 of the suggestions guidelines. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

guidelines. sorry. Have we got any previous issues with candidates being refused promotion for not following the guidelines?Is the whole self nomination thing even needed? Looking back we've only had 5 candidates in 4 years refuse nomination.... --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

let me try to answer your question, not locking like an ass now. User A can gather vouches for User B in a talk page (either User A or User B talk page), ask User B if he is interested, and when he says he is, User A can nominate the user. Yes, it lacks the element of surprise the current one has, but this atleast spares the community from having to discuss on unaccepted nominations or candidacies that will undoubtedly fail. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 01:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it back. This should've been discussed first. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another attempt by hagnat to stealth rule this wiki. There is no significant spam problem through the promotions system. As hagnat points out these are simply guidelines and may be changed by any user. Given that no attempt at consultation was made with the wider community, if there is consensus from at least one other user I will revert his changes until the appropriate discussions have been made. EDIT: Mid beat me to it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'm going to revert all of hag's changes for now. Lets get some input from everyone else, yeah? EDIT: Mid got it. And then Iscariot edit conflicted me. Damn you both! :) --Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain logic to Hagnat's idea. However, I think he takes it too far. I suggest something very simple. A seperate header for seeking nominations. Once you get three, then voting commences automatically. The vouches, however, are counted as FOR votes normally, of course. I'd suggest 48 hours to collect three vouches. Voting per se could still start before those vouches are received, but if after 48 hours they're not received, it's archived as failed. --WanYao 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats exactly what i was trying to prevent: HAVING failed nominations. Even if you limited this nomination period to 1 hour it would still be enough time to create a shitload of unneeded drama. A user should only run for sysop when he had a slight chance of getting promoted. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines overhaul

Proposed changes:

1. Increasing the minimum required time active on the UD Wiki to be 3 (I'd like 4) months, from 2 months
2. Increasing the minimum number of edits to 1,500, from 500
3. Increase the number of minimum edits of the first 3 users vouching to 500 each
4. Some sort of Nomination system.

Discuss.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 19:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User the + button next time you create a new header, you editing conflicted bastard. I think only the minimum time should be incread (3 is more than enough), and the changes i made, of course. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with changes 1, 2 and 3. 4 is completely unneeded, Hagnat's point about news spam is completely strawman, most of the unaccepted ones don't even land on there, mine didn't, and it shouldn't be put up there until the three vouches are received. The main problem with Hagnat's bad faith stealth changes is the change that definitively requires support from a current sysop. It is not required by the current guidelines, the notion of the promotions system is support from the community in general, not the exercising of some 'Old Boys' Club'. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever read page rules before commenting on them? You've been required to get a sysop vouch for a very very long time now and it's probably the easiest thing to do with Conndraka and Hagnat wandering about. The only person that couldn't get one is you or a frequent vandal, for the same reason, both have shown they'll abuse the ability. --Karek^maps?! 20:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I'm thinking I read them better than you. You are referring to this section:"We define this as a minimum of three other users (preferably users with at least 200 edits under their name and at least one System Operator)" emphasis mine. Preferably is a qualifier for that entire sentence, meaning that it is preferred that the three users have at least 200 edits and it is preferred that one of them be a sysop. It is not a requirement. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Come back when a user is promoted without a sysop vouch. You can't and won't because it will never happen. Keep thinking you're being clever by arguing that preferably makes it any less of a real requirement that is being made clear to the users before the bid takes place, I'm just gonna be over here laughing at your belief that you're right in any way. --Karek^maps?! 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I do so enjoy it when you tell the truth Karek. What he's saying to all our viewers out there, is it doesn't matter how well liked you are by the entire community, if a group of less than 10 individuals doesn't like you, you can't gain promotion on this wiki. Entrenched individuals deciding things against community consensus, since 2005. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If a user is liked by the entire communitiy, chances are high that he will be liked by someone in the admin staff too. Like karek said, there will always be an inclusionist like conn or myself around. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 21:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To all our viewers out there what Iscariot is really saying here is that he thinks he is actually liked by the community no matter how many times people tell him he is an unwanted troll because if he does ever get a bid up he's gonna beg in IRC for votes, which will probably end up changed when someone actually shows them the kinda shit he pulls on a regular basis here. It's the same reason why he'll beg users to make him a bid but won't let users that aren't omg popular do it, he craves approval and has deluded himself into thinking he actually has it from anyone here.

TL:DR? If you're approved of by the community you will get a sysop vouch, if you're not approved of by the 'crats you don't stand a chance anyway and they happen to actually be sysops. Iscariot be trollin'.--Karek^maps?! 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the position one is applying for is a sysop, so it's not completely unfounded for people who are sysops and thus have experience in the matter to require some support from them. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1) 4 months would be OK with me. 2) No problem. 3) I'd prefer if the whole "still requiring vouches" phase was removed. 4) What? Why? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not agreeing with is but, it would be a way to show the required trust in the community, or at least from part of the community no matter how small. I don't think it's needed though, all it will prevent is new users making bids. --Karek^maps?! 20:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1's OK with me, and 2's not bad, although 1,000 edits seems a bit more reasonable. I don't see why 3 or 4 are needed, though. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that point 4 was in response to Hagnat wanting some sort of nomination system in here, not that I want it. I don't, I like how it works now.

Point three though, would help keep some group member from nominating someone, and then more of the group vouching to get him under com. review, meaning we have to go through the whole charade when there really is no point. It's not definite, it was just one of the original ideas me and Dux had.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Promotion Guidelines Overhaul

Now there's a policy that failed because not enough people voted on it, if ever I saw one. BArring the questions, I think the numbers are a good example.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, we hashed it out for awhile on the talk page of it. :) --Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Karek's Pettiness and Incorrectness

Karek has decided to revert my rightful edit to the page. As is typical with Karek he attempts to browbeat other users with a facetious and patently wrong comment.

And I quote from the guidelines that are freely available at the top of the page: "Users who wish to request System Operator status (and users who wish to nominate other users for System Operator status) should note that before they can be considered the following guidelines should be met by the candidate:

Once the candidate satisfies these guidelines, the user is then subject to a community discussion. All users are asked to comment on the candidate in question, ask questions of the candidate, and discuss the candidate's suitability for becoming a System Operator. This is not a vote. It is instead merely a request for comments from the wiki community. This will continue for two weeks, as all users get a chance to air their opinions on the candidate.

Once the two weeks are up, the Bureaucrats will review the community discussion and make a decision based upon it. The user will be notified of the status of their request, and will be promoted should it appear that the community is willing to accept them as a System Operator. "

Emphasis mine.

Wan's bid clearly does not meet criteria four, he has not posted here and no edit has been linked where he asserts this, therefore this bid is not yet subject to community discussion and should remain in the section I have again returned it to until this condition has been satisfied or until seven days has passed, at which time it can be archived as per Nubis' precedent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

you forgot to quote hagnat from his rewriting of the guiudelines when he said they were just guidelines and could be ignored.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wan clearly has at least a small measure of desire to become a sysop. However, to avoid the needless drama over something like this, he needs to post here officially.-- Adward  22:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree please for the love of everything holy, get Wan to post here. The last thing we need is yet another VB war between sysops and Iscariot. This entire thing can be avoided if WAn will just post something.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My bid was up for days before i even noticed, Wan is not as active as he once was but has vlearly stated that he would consider running.... at the end of the day he can not be promoted against his wishes but you do have a point in that he really should have noticed by now!--Honestmistake 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Kindly note this now makes two trusted users that have reverted correct edits because it suits them. Rules for everyone else, and not for them. If Jerrel Yokotory had continually moved his promotion bid into that section they'd have escalated him, however different matter when it's them breaching the basic rules we all are supposed to obey to ensure fair process. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. -- Cheese 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn trusted users anyway...--SirArgo ^Talk 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot, I know what the guidelines say, and I believe guidelines should be followed pretty straight forwards sometimes (Keyword being sometimes. :D), but all in all, this doesn't matter too much. I promise he will not be promoted unless he states on the promotion page or it's talk that he clearly wants the position. Fair enough?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 23:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a simple fact that if Jerrel Yokotory moved his promotion to the under community discussion section without fulfilling the criteria, both of the aforementioned users would have moved it back to the correct section. If Jerrel had then put it back in the wrong section, these aforementioned users would have reverted that edit and left a note as to why in the edit summary, after that they'd have mentioned in on the fucking talk page, at yet another reversion they'd have escalated him for spamming up the fucking admin pages by subverting the process. They do it, and fuck me gently with a chainsaw, it's allowed! One rule for some and not for others.... perhaps I should be shocked and amazed....

The pertinent point is how long Wan's bid will stay open for if at some point he chooses to accept. What happens if two weeks expire without him accepting? Will you then make a decision and establish crit 4 then? There could be a fuckload of users in this community waiting to see if he'll accept before noting that they are against his promotion, the guidelines and the entire fucking process is designed to give such users two weeks to register this disapproval should Wan accept and from that moment. This is an attempt to reduce the time and thereby subvert the process. If we're allowing this we may as well remove this entire fucking process and let Crat's promote on whim because this blatant double standard is making sure that dissent is discouraged or skirted through the actions of users that are supposed to represent and defend the will of the community of the UD wiki.

Further there is the precedent that Nubis established with Jerrel's promotion bid. Jerrel, like Wan, had not fulfilled the criteria. After seven days Nubis archived the promotion as failed due to the criteria not being fulfilled. We all know that he won't be objective and archive this bid if it also goes to seven days with unfulfilled criteria. Are you going to SA? Should we restore Jerrel's bid to let Crat's decide as per Karek's attempt to browbeat the community in his edit summaries? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You're attempting to reason with Iscariot here. Once he makes a point, right or not, it will be fought to his last breath.--SirArgo ^Talk 00:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, does it matter at all? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 01:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't see because we have two assholes who's job it is to make sure people don't get promoted without meeting all the qualifications along with having community support. It's largely irrelevant and as such we should be moving it like any other user. If we listened when Iscariot did crap like this we'd be the internet equivalent of teaching the mentally handicapped to fuck with sock puppets. Common Sense over rules loudmouthed idiots who dig for edit wars over unimportant issues. --Karek^maps?! 12:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Amen. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

One user does not fulfil one of the criteria. Nubis archives it after seven days.

Nubis proposes a user. Over a week later that user does not fulfil one of the criteria. Does this get archived? Is there any parity? No, one rule if a sysop likes you, another if they don't. Be shocked and amazed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Buddy, you need to get laid. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Jerrel failed three criteria (edits, "prior interest in maintaining the community", three vouches), not one. Second, the majority of people are vouching for Wan, while the majority were against Jerrel. So, no, it's not "one rule if a sysop likes you, another if they don't", it's more like "one rule if the community likes you, another if they don't", which doesn't sound half bad considering this is Promotions. It would help you in your Fight for the Rights of the Community if you actually paid attention to them. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of reasoning in "votes"

I'm noticing a disturbing lack of reason in user comments. It doesn't matter if it's a vouch, against, abstain, strongly or not, for the "vote" to be of any particular use, there needs to be proper rationale behind it, especially examples. Otherwise it's a pretty (or not) sig and doesn't aid the discussion or 'crats in any meaningful way. Perhaps there should be an extra large notice somewhere for people to see, explaining that this isn't a vote? (this would be a good link, by the way). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:26, 12 May 2009 (BST)

Oh come on. The crat's by and large just choose who they'd vouch for. Fair enough, that's what they were elected for but seriously there's nothing most people could sway that would change that view. Anyway the idea that a simply vouch means nothing is bullshit. You had an opinion of each person of the wiki and value what they think, so do the crat/s. Thus a simply vouch or against from user x tells will influence the crat. Anyway we already know which of the users is going to get promoted so, shrug.--xoxo 05:25, 13 May 2009 (BST)

It's not completely useless, in that it tells them they're are willing to vouch/be against, but as far aiding the discussion or the 'crats, it's not really useful. A lot of people don't seem to recognize that the process isn't a vote. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:20, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Certain people don't seem to recognize that this isn't Wikipedia. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:43, 14 May 2009 (BST)

As Iscariot. The community here is so small that Bureaucrats are elected under the trust that they know the community well. Users who may be considered for promotion should and would (if they had any probability of being accepted) be known by the bureaucrats enough so that the 'crats are already aware of any major issues about the candidate. Basically, if there is an issue so important that a user would have to bring in links as evidence, I like to believe that the bureaucrat would be aware of it already. And even if they don't, the wiki is small enough so almost anything can be found within a few minutes anyway. But my biggest issue is, if evidence becomes law, how would we deal with purged history? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:19, 14 May 2009 (BST)

You guys are misunderstanding what I'm saying. And Iscariot, that's right this isn't Wikipedia but this still isn't a vote so reasoning is normally required to get a point across. It's irrelevant. Engel already oversized the text so it's pointless to delve into this further for such a small issue. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:23, 14 May 2009 (BST)

No, you're the one not getting what we're saying. You are linking to a completely different community's consensus and attempting to tell members of this community that the way we are participating is wrong. You're wrong, and what you're doing is really fucking wrong. You know where policy discussion is, go change this community's policies if you think fucking Wikipedia does it better, see if this community agrees with you. What you're doing is no different to someone complaining about the pro-survivor bias on suburb pages and linking policy and guidelines from Conservapedia saying that this should be the criteria for sources. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:25, 14 May 2009 (BST)

No, what I'm saying is that people are missing the whole "this is not a vote" thing and that I suggested making it more clear. The link, to be added or not, was just intended to be a helper or a guideline. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:39, 14 May 2009 (BST)

A more free-form answer to this discussion may be to encourage bureaucrats to inquire users about said vouches/againsts, if they feel the need. I just don't think we should be forcing the community into something that rigid, we should be encouraging their participation through the most accessible method we can offer. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:02, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Can't force people to do things. :D You can force them to stop, though. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:28, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Alternatively, you could do something like make Promotions their own pages (in the same system as archived promotion bids are already done) and give each page a similar template as the suggestion templates, that explain guidelines, rules, and the like. It may make the entire system a bit easier on the eyes and more accessible to newbs. And all we would have to do is add a link to each bid on the main promotions page (while its running). It would definitely create less clutter on the A/PM page (like what we see now, 4 well-sized promotion bids). D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:20, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Have a cry. --Cyberbob 05:39, 13 May 2009 (BST)

you mean go cry me a river? As the dead walk 12:13, 14 May 2009 (BST)

No, I mean "have a cry". If I meant "go cry me a river" I would have said "go cry me a river". --Cyberbob 13:00, 14 May 2009 (BST)

fucking burn!! xoxo 12:23, 24 May 2010 (BST)