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....--x o x o 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? --Ross less ne s s^{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.--Ross less ne s s^{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. --Ross less ne s s^{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.... --Ross less ne s s^{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:

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

Discuss.--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. -- AHLG T G 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.--Ross less ne s s^{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.--Ross less ne s s^{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. -- C h e e s e 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? -- AHLG T G 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)

Rakuen

I'm awesome.

Also, cocks.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

NO and so soon after the last try this seems awfully like SPAMMING! --Honestmistake 23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any actual rule against posting promotion bids so soon after each other? No? HAHA nigger.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
NO Your 6 page edits since your last bid have done nothing to change my mind. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
What do my last 6 edits have to do with anything? Check my edits before my last bid, and you'll see the awesomeness that is me.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Spam --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
COOOOCKS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WOOT (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
Against/No/Spam - I hope you get A/VB'd for this one.--SirArgo ^Talk 23:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Me too, been trying for that 24 hour --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Spam - stop spamming the promotions page, woot. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 00:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Fuck you.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - Call me an optimist. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
FUCK YEA SEAKING!--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Against - If Iscariot says you're cool, that's a strike. _Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 04:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Vendettas = uncool. --Pestolence^(talk) 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

^That... also you're a nigger. (not you Pesto)--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I am! --Pestolence^(talk) 01:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Vagainst. I mean against...--Nallan (Talk) 04:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This soooo means you aren't J3D's sheep...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmk.--Nallan (Talk) 09:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Dupe - As Ross. Linkthewindow Talk 05:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Isee.jpg IMAGES LOLOL--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Vouch one more says 2 weeks.--x o x o 06:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
FUCK YEA SEAKING!--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - I believe he has reformed himself since his last bid. --Cyberbob 06:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I no rite? --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Against/No/SpamAnd that is saying something coming from me. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 07:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Nigger.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Against - Too soon since the last one to be funny Rakky =[ D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I heartily disconcur. --x o x o 05:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

k --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Against - No. -- C h e e s e 10:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
fgt --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Space Bat - :'( --Janus ^talk 14:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Fuck Space Bat. RIP Boxxy's new video </3 --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This is the punishment for insulting the Space Bat. >:( --Janus ^talk 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
\o/ --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - He will be an asset to the community. --Pestolence^(talk) 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I came--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Against - Spam URANIUM BOMBS. --Zs L 15:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
8D --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Silvio Berlusconi - I have to agree with DDR here i'm afraid...But I like your style generally though, this wiki is getting a bit dull. Action time nao?--Thadeous Oakley 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Against - Just say no.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 12:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
WTF CENTAUR - Cuz I can. --Haliman - Talk 01:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I call for an archival of this bid. Rak, please stop this. kk?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

He has two weeks for this bid, like it or not those are the rules. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, via Jerrel Yokotory's bid, precedent has been set showing that bids can be processed and archived before the two week mark. Normally, I'd let it run it's course, but as evident by the vandalism case against him, he's not ready for the job. If no one else gets to it first, I'm archiving this tomorrow, simple as that.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jerrel's bid did not meet criteria, this meets all criteria. If you won't allow Wan's bid to be archived after a week as per the precedent established by the Jerrel case, you certainly cannot archive it just because you dislike it and have made a decision without even considering the views of the community. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 12:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you delete it. A/VB#User:WOOT -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

archive not deletion. You can only delete vandalism edits. Feel free to do that but you'd leave the archive rather disjointed and confusing...--x o x o 11:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you delete, since it's vandalism. It doesn't get archived because it's not an actual bid. If WOOT cares enough, it can go in his userspace or on this talk page like the joke arbitration cases. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 16:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, but still technically a valid (if highly unqualified and unwanted by the community bid. Archival unless another sysops steps in.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Arbitration cases "for the lulz" have been removed before, sometimes to the talk page. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of reasoning in "votes"

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

Rakuen

(Talk | Contribs)

Besides the fact that I'm amazing. I deserve this. I mean srsly. No one else puts so much effort into doing nothing. <- prolly a lie

Basically I'm deciding to totally backflip on my longstanding position of actually contributing to the community. Why? Well I pretty much feel like thi wiki's in for a bit of a boring era with regards to trolling and lulz in general and it's really frustrating having to sit on the sidelines andhope my posts (read: trollbait) are read by the newfags and idiots.

Now because I don't want to basemy bid entirely around a temporary (and possibly one at's not going to happen. Still hoping for a second Terminal, Ioncannon, or Garviel) state of affairs, here's some totally pointless shit: I pretty much know this place inside and out... okay not really, just /vandal/, /miscon/, and /arbies/. I'm more than capable of separating personal conflicts with my sysop duties... all my page deletions will be totally random, and not in any way biased by how much you pissed me off (okay maybe not). Also, I'm rarely active so that's a pro... I mean you don't want me messing with your shit 24/7 right?

Not much else to say, really (tbh I dunno why I'm bothering to even write this much; I could just say niggertits and be done with it)

niggertits--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:33, 18 June 2009 (BST)

Against - you've hardly contributed to the wiki in the period since your last bid (just over 50 edits, most to talk pages.) Do some work, and then come back. Linkthewindow Talk 21:42, 18 June 2009 (BST)
Quality... all those talk page comments are worth like 3 normal comments.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:45, 18 June 2009 (BST)
So? I would expect more admin page or janitorial edits from a potential op, and even then, 150 over threeish months is far too few. Although I don't know why I'm treating this like srs bizness, since it's obviously just been made for the lulz. Have fun with your troll bid. Linkthewindow Talk 21:59, 18 June 2009 (BST)
Not a troll bid fgt. Also, cocks.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:55, 18 June 2009 (BST)
Strong SPAM Vouch Perfect candidate. On a side note, you might want to watch out with the word "nigger". It got Jed two warnings already.--Thadeous Oakley 21:42, 18 June 2009 (BST)
Haha. Nigger. J3D deserved it.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:45, 18 June 2009 (BST)
Watch out, Bob might be watching ;).--Thadeous Oakley 21:49, 18 June 2009 (BST)
wat.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:54, 18 June 2009 (BST)

You're a stupid baby, Thadeous. I only have a problem with unironic usages of words like nigger. I don't think Rakuen even knows how to use a word unironically (that's a compliment). --Cyberbob 12:51, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Against - Based on his bid speechthing. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:58, 18 June 2009 (BST)
aww ;_; --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:03, 18 June 2009 (BST)
Þ) --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:04, 18 June 2009 (BST)
B3 --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:15, 18 June 2009 (BST)
Against/Spam - Please take up heavy drug abuse.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:04, 18 June 2009 (BST)
Will do. Give it a year or two.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:15, 18 June 2009 (BST)
Against - Im perplexed--C Whitty 22:27, 18 June 2009 (BST)
k--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:33, 18 June 2009 (BST)
Vouch - WOOT is the man! --Haliman - Talk 22:31, 18 June 2009 (BST)
Finally. I was feeling down... might need to move onto those hard drugs Argo was talking about.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:49, 18 June 2009 (BST)
holy crap it's a ghost --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:37, 18 June 2009 (BST)

I recommend pure cocaine. You get to starve to death while you have extra bouts of strength!--SirArgo ^Talk 22:39, 18 June 2009 (BST)
What about speed/meth? I get to have lots of fun, but then end up regretting the shit out of it for the next few days.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:49, 18 June 2009 (BST)
NO. THE METH BELONGS TO LI. --Haliman - Talk 23:27, 18 June 2009 (BST)
What are you, some kind of meth soup nazi? >:C --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:28, 18 June 2009 (BST)
NO METH FOR YOU. --Haliman - Talk 23:56, 18 June 2009 (BST)
kk I'll just stick with the heroin--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:12, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Against - But only because he doubts the ultimate wholesomeness of speed/meth. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 23:03, 18 June 2009 (BST)
That's me who doubts speed/meth. Meth addicts are sad to watch. Coke addicts are usually just angry.--SirArgo ^Talk 23:12, 18 June 2009 (BST)
"Meth addicts are sad to watch." - Some are quite fun. --Haliman - Talk 23:52, 18 June 2009 (BST)
Tweakers and Methheads = lulz--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:12, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Vouch - Rofl. --Obi^{+ Talk!|TZH|MDK} 23:15, 18 June 2009 (BST)
I jizzed in my pants--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:12, 19 June 2009 (BST)
lolshoegoeswhar?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:39, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Put shoe on head--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:12, 19 June 2009 (BST)
You seem to have some sort of creature tying to eat your signature. Hmm. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:00, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Prolly a gnome... one hairy gnome... with sharp teeth.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:12, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Against - The community is bored of trolls. --WanYao 04:52, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Bawww--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 08:16, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Against I have no doubt WOOT could be an invaluable asset to to the wiki, and an outstanding sysop. But not yet. Maybe when he finishes puberty or something...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 06:40, 19 June 2009 (BST)
if you literally believe that he could ever be an "outstanding sysop" then ur dumb --Cyberbob 06:47, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Agreed.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 08:16, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Weak Vouch - Because he used my candidacy template. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:58, 19 June 2009 (BST)
:D --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 08:16, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Vouch - as per my contractual obligations.--x o x o 07:34, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Fuck yes that's three! I am amazing. (actually that might be four :/)--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 08:16, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Spam --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:05, 19 June 2009 (BST)
DICKS EVERYWHERE--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Spam --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 11:12, 19 June 2009 (BST)
DICKS EVERYWHERE--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Ab-Spam-Stain This seems a little too... identical to Cyberbob's bid for me to be able to take it seriously. Prove me otherwise and I'll change my vote. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 11:15, 19 June 2009 (BST)
Fuck that. Fuck work. Vouch me or not.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Strong Vouch - He's the second coming of the Messiah. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 11:23, 19 June 2009 (BST)
I always knew you loved me. Plus, obama--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Vouch - I know he's a complete moron, and has never done one good thing in his entire god-forsaken life, but maybe, just maybe, if we give him this, he'll surprise us all, turn it around and actually reveal something approaching competency. I mean, what's the worst that could happen, right? --Goofy McCoy ^{mfd HK-47 talk} 11:35, 19 June 2009 (BST)
A grim coup for lulz. but otherwise yes. I'm awesome and the wiki will become 5x better if elected FUCK YES--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Vouch - I was gonna vote no, but Goofy convinced me. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 12:20, 19 June 2009 (BST)
:D --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Spam against i'd rather see cody6 made sysop first.----Sexualharrison 12:32, 19 June 2009 (BST)
You're a Jew. :| --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 12:59, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Indeed... plus... didn't you vouch me like the last two times? x| --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Vouch - Rakuen will be an asset to the community. --Pestolence^(talk) 19:33, 19 June 2009 (BST)
I'm an asshat to everyone, not just to the community. --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Vouch - FIGHT THE BUERACRACY AND ELITISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Imthatguy 19:47, 19 June 2009 (BST)
FUCK YES ELITISM--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Spam - Rakuen will be an ASSett to the community. --Private Mark 21:23, 19 June 2009 (BST)
You mean ASSet, don't you? --Pestolence^(talk) 21:36, 19 June 2009 (BST)
I think yall mean asshat. --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Against - That bitting in his signature just screams "look at me". What an attention whore. --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 22:36, 19 June 2009 (BST)
sure--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Vouch - He represents the best of the Mexican race. --Blanemcc 00:20, 20 June 2009 (BST)
:| imma american--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Against - Stale, moldy, rock-solid spam. --Zs L 02:53, 20 June 2009 (BST)
blame DDR. Or someone. --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:37, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Against - I'd never heard of you before and you've managed to get me to vote against you--Legion8 04:59, 20 June 2009 (BST)

This bid has been ruled to be vandalism and moved to the talk page as a result. -- C h e e s e 09:26, 20 June 2009 (BST)
He got 11 vouches, people have been promoted with less. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:12, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Not a vote etc. etc. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:25, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Rahrah

Against - You don't need extra buttons to do what you do. You don't need extra buttons to improve the wiki. I don't want you to have extra buttons because I have no idea of how you're going to act when you get on A/VB or A/M. This notion that people who implement new systems and templates on the wiki will make good sysops is simply idiotic, they either make a mess of rulings or they just stick their heads in the sand and ignore these pages even when they are required. We already have two drama adverse sysops simply taking up space on the roster, I don't want more that will leave ruling in the hands of a small group. We need sysops that can rule based on understanding this community, its precedents and policies. They can then be taught to move/delete/restore pages far quicker than we can teach you what you need to know about vandalism, misconduct and good faith. Also, messing up a move isn't serious, causing a ruling to go the wrong way because you want to be nice can have much more serious consequences for this community. Additionally this user has previously decided that his own opinions and perceptions are all he needs to go around changing stuff for other groups. I have doubts about his ability to remain impartial. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the majority of those that put themselves up for sysop don't need the tools that come with the post, nor do they have much experience in A/VB or A/M. From looking at the Successful bid history, I can only see Jedaz needed the "buttons". (Although the reference to needing the Move function is very slight, it is the only mention of needing sysop tools I have seen reading through the old bids.)

I am also slightly confused by the comment "This notion that people who implement new systems and templates on the wiki will make good sysops is simply idiotic", as leadership is one of the criterion for sysophood, something which implementing new systems requires. I also found a quote from Vista(A former Crat.): "...the position of a sysop is that of a glorified janitor." You may well say it's idiotic, but that notion seems to have stayed for at least two years.

In response to the last statement, I was in the wrong. If I were to find something on the wiki that I disagree with, I would now check around and try to find out about the oddity. I suppose there is no-one I can thank for that trait than you, Iscariot. But I might mention Vista once again, who (in the same speech) said this: "The only place where a small amount of personal judgment is possible is the vandal banning page."

---Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}19:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It isn't about whether you physically need them, it's about whether you would do anything with them. If someone got elected sysop, and just sat on their ass abusing the power as a badge while not taking on the workload, then that wouldn't be good. Now, obviously, you'll do your share, that's why you're here, but your other jobs are quite likely to take priority. Someone who's overhauling the factory pages on a whim is hardly going to have time to visit all the admin pages, watch out for vandalism, and fulfil newbies requests. As with Red hawk, I'll refer you to Mobius187's promotion bid. I'll post a link momentarily.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your link, good sir. It illustrates the ideal of "Why do you need the buttons" perfectly.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I am unsure what you mean by "workload", could you please elabourate? Also, if I were a sysop, I wouldn't have to visit all of the admin pages, as some of them are mostly unused except for special occasions. An example of such pages are A/BP, A/RE, A/U and A/DM. Whilst I was overhauling the factory pages, I was notified of someone editing my talk page. I was able to respond to you within a few minutes. Therefore, I think I could reply to a new editor quickly.

However, I still have little to reply to why I need buttons. In short, I need the buttons as much as any other sysop. I also admit that with my overhauling of the factory pages, vandalism may go unnoticed, due to the amount of similar edits I performed. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, I totally agree, I don't actually follow that belief at all, I was just showing you what Iscariot (may have) meant by it.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much relation between Mobius and Rory at all. Users like Mobius and Swiers warned us they would have no desire to use sysop functions and as such were just products of the "push them into the position because they are good contributors" mentality. Rory, as above, has demonstrated that he doesn't share those views on sysopship at all. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

When all of the above crap that both of them know belongs on the fucking talk page actually goes there, I believe I'll respond to the candidate. Shockingly I can speak for myself and make my own arguments and don't need people explaining 'what I mean' incorrectly. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
How cute, fingers too sore to do it yourself? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe he didn't want to do it because for the most part it should have been put here from the start? ANd yes, I know I'm a hypocrite in this case. ^^ -- SA 00:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
And that changes his right to leave it how? He was the one complaining about it, whether it should be here or not changes nothing of his obligation (or all of ours). --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't change anything. Yeah, he was complaining, but he also isn't obligated to respond or do anyhting. What he simply said was that if Rory cared enough to hear more of what Iscariot says, he'd put it on the talk page like it should have been.-- SA 00:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
So he said "I have an opinion, which only I want to have heard, but you only get to hear it if you do something for me, else I won't tell you"? Doesn't sound like Iscariot at all. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think any of us have said that that doesn't sound like him. :/ -- SA 01:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It was a joke, you numbskull. And he did the right thing anyway by re-transferring the relevant parts of the discussion back onto A/PM anyway, so it's all good. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Learn to sign your posts, you can practise over at arbitration to back up your 'word' if you like. Iscariot's major problem was with "I was just showing you what Iscariot (may have) meant by it.", Iscariot will tell the candidate what he means, and he doesn't need help doing it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
And SA will sit there scratching his head as to why Iscariot decided to go with third person.-- SA 01:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm Iscariot? I thought I was DCC? Or is it DDR? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
afdsflk;sad lkj;cafsmjavjlcma. :/ -- SA 01:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You chose this path, my offer is withdrawn like I promised; don't try and antagonise me, it won't work. Not interested. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You chose to offer something that you wouldn't confirm. You have the history of saying you'll do things and then not doing them, I wanted confirmation, you daren't do something that would actually make you stick to your word. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I did more than what should have been required to have your version of justice be revealed, if you are too stubborn to take even that, it's 100% your loss, not mine. Deal with it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
All you're doing is confirming that you won't keep your word, that's the long and short of it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You really are a troll, aren't you. I kept my word, but you wished to stretch it beyond what you could trust me of, an once it goes there, I'm not interested, hence why I explicitly expressed having you do that would void the deal. No doubt you'll keep up this integrity-filled persona though, right? You really crave the attention I give you, don't you. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Previous to this situation you had not kept your word, having said you do something you didn't. Wary of the same thing happening again I asked for you to back up your offer with a ruling that you couldn't get out of. You immediately went on the defensive and started to dictate 'conditions' onto the offer. Even when I offered a similar concession if you should have proved me wrong you still wouldn't go through with it. Says all sorts of things about you, not me. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, untrue. The only think I've said I would ever do but didn't is help you with your A/VD, which I couldn't do because I would repeatedly ask in PMs via IRC for you to tell me the problem (want some logs at all?), which you would always refuse to address. Oh, what? The issue again comes back to that? What a surprise. Case closed, I believe. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
IRC logs? Perhaps you'll come across the other thing you'd said you'd do and didn't, the situation that proves that you can't keep your word. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps. Either way, this is closed, your A/VD situation is your fault and no one elses, period. Learn to pester someone else. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
"The crime isn't the fault of the perpetrator, it is the fault of the victim!". Jesus H. Me, you really do have your morals backwards don't you? Next you're going to tell me that she deserved it due to the way she was dressed.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Maaaaayyyyybbbbeeee.....-- SA 02:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the slap-slap-kiss.-- SA 01:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Misanthropy

~~Abstain~~ Against - You seem to be great, but I don't really know you, or how you'd deal with things. Also, too many of your edits seem to be about your own group or userspace.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I've just run through your last 500 edits to check I'm right, and I drummed out that 265 of your last 500 edits were on your own group or user page. Or their talks, templates, etc. Now, you might get a weak vouch out of me from that, but the fact that 105 of those edits were made shortly after DDR's comment that you needed less user comments makes me kind of less inclined to.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Truth be told, most of my edits have always been in user spaces and talk pages, all about useless shit too. The only reason I got promoted was because of Assylum. I learned all about the administration and how it works because of it. So spam and user talk pages shouldn't exactly be discounted. It's his knowledge when he DOES visit admin pages and the like that should be thought of. And also, you can do admin-y things on talk pages. Like helping with sigs, formatting, letting people know the proper way to go about things, etc. -- SA 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course now that I re-read your comment, I realize I had read it wrong initially. Oh well. My comment stands!-- SA 18:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying they should be discounted. I just don't think they should be the basis. Hence why I'm abstaining.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
My abstain was because I didn't know how you'd handle drama. Now that I've seen your actions on DevSug, I know how you deal with it, and I'm not keen on you making Sysop. Especially considering the inflation you'd get if you were to act this way on admin pages. You'd need to do quite a bit to change my mind.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
What did he do, other than point out that ZL's original suggestion dissapeared about 30 seconds after a warning to avoid taking flamebait was posted? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Copy-pasted and re-added the comments that were taken out with it. 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly calling ZL a vandal because ZL wanted to add a new variatioon of his suggestion, which is perfectly within his rights.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
otoh you thought riling Iscariot up was a good idea Cyberbob Talk 07:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not overstate things here. At least from what I've seen, ZL submitted two virtually identical suggestions (see diff), Misanthropy restored the somewhat critical comments from the first one after ZL nuked them (potentially by accident), then restored them again after ZL very intentionally wiped them out. After that, he referred to him as a "vandal" just once on DS (here). This is much ado about nothing. —Aich on— 08:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll admit that using the word 'vandal' was a bad idea, but restoring deleted talk comments, especially when ther removal seemed highly suspect, is something I'll stand by. 09:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
So, people can no longer remove their suggestions on DevSug? And they can't submit new versions? Wow, I can't believe I missed those policies going through.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
there are no policies in a sense, just discussions about it and then voting to implement it. You don't have to create a new policy page and all that fiddle fuss. Just make a topic on the appropriate talk page, and eventually vote on it. Being that's how it's done, it's quite possible for anyone to miss their implementation.-- SA 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Except it hasn't happened. He's just trying to enforce rules which don't exist.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he was trying to enforce rules. It's simply bad form to delete others' comments if all you're doing is a minor change, and he was trying to do the courteous thing in that situation by restoring the comments. —Aich on— 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The "helpful comments" you keep referring to are one which no longer applies to the suggeston. In fact, he changed it for that very reason. So, I can only assume that the comment you all found so helpful was Lelouch telling him that he shouldn't be afforded the same righst as everybody else, and that the suggestion was spam, when it clearly wasn't. Sure it needed developing, but that's the purpose of the page.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
First, I never used that term or claimed they were helpful (I simply called them "critical"; see definition #1). Second, the content of the comments is irrelevant; it's still bad form to nuke comments. Third, we're way off-topic. Talk page? —Aich on— 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing your suggestion and resubmitting it with little to no changes (unless the one change you made is the entire suggestion anyways. The entire system is bullshit really) is a bad faith action considered by many to be a way to get rid of comments you don't like. It's been like this for ages now. If that happens, we restore the original comments, and tell the suggester their a naughty person and if they keep it up no one will listen-to/like their suggestions, and it could lead to official warnings. ZL should have put the V2 bit on the new suggestion when he posted it though, because up until then, it looked almost exactly the same with a cursory glance, it even had the same name, which could easily appear to be a resubmission of the exact same suggestion, with the offending comments censored. Hell, if any of the comments were still valid, Mis could have added them back in without a single person being able to tell him no. It's been like this for ages now

He tried to enforce precedent that's been around longer than you have, and you really should look into things more before go calling someone else unfit for 'op. Mis handled the situation quite well, he even backed off when he learned it was a new suggestion. At this point, I'm thinking you might be a bit jealous of him, since there's a lot more support for him than you.
Also, no one called those comments helpful you stupid shit. God damn, do you not know how to read?-- SA 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

*Cough Cough*-- SA 18:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk page, anyone? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they called them critical, as in important, which is actually a stronger word than helpful. And as you said, if they were still applicable, he could have kept them. The fact that they weren't is why I'm not happy. And, if you mean "handled well", you mean being generally unpleasant to ZL and then being annoyed, then I guess so. And I know that he handled it politely (after seeing that it was a new suggestion, which you think he would've taken the time to check.) In fact, I had a polite conversation with him on his talk. I changed my opinion to an against, and he knows why, and anyone who's read my comments should also know why. That's what matters.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Edit Conflict
No, they called them critical, as in the comments were cutting, not important. That still doesn't make them helpful, and it still show's that you're just makign shit up as you go. You're not happy because of a single mistake that others probably see as more ZL's fault for not finishing the name change in the same post. You want to call him unpleasant? Considering Mis originally though that ZL was just censoring people, the dick comment was entirely justified. ZL was more offensive than Mis was (and I don't fault him for it either). You changed your opinion to an against based on rather flimsy shit, that has been disproven. It's your opinion, I don't care how you feel. It's the fact that you're here lying about "policies" and hurling horseshit at another candidate, while being wrong yourself.-- SA 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wrong kind of critical. And this doesn't go to ZL's conduct, it goes to Mis'. He should have talked to ZL about it, not just thrown the comments back on. And my original comment stated that I didn't know how he would react to drama. So I abstained. When i knew that he didn't react well, and leapt to an assumption, I changed it to an against. If he had acted perfectly, I would have vouched. I haven't lied about policies either, I don't see where you're getting that from. Now, we can continue this on the talk, or your talk. It's your choice, but this is getting moved now.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll spell it out for you.

You lied about policies by saying he was enforcing rules which don't exist. They do, as precedent. Though he wasn't entirely correct, if he had been, he'd have been in the right to replace them. You were wrong, and now you want to feign ignorance by saying you don't know what I'm talking about.
It's common practice to revert the damage then talk to people. You should know that by now.
He reacted rather well, considering some people would have jumped straight to A/VB, making what would end up a frivolous case.
You can't fault one's conduct without faulting the other in this situation, ZL should have explained that he hadn't changed the name yet, and that it really did have changes, instead of telling Mis to go fuck himself, and leaving the name as it was. they were both at fault for their conduct, now quit trying to push it on Mis.

Got it?-- SA 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's alot clearer. And thanks for being civil, by the way. Frankly, I didn't lie about policy. I said there wasn't, and there wasn't. I missed out on the precedent thing, but fairly enough, ZL was just updating his suggestion with a newer version, a practice he has taken part in before, with his barricade degradation and weapon breaking suggestions, neither of which people had a problem with. I guess I agree that his conduct is important in the matter, but only if provocative. They both amplified at the same rate, so I didn't consider it to be vital. A kind of 6 of one situation. Mis' was the only one relevant to his bid. Your comment has proven that i was incorrect. For 2, I agree, but he made no attempt to contact ZL. It was ZL commentign in an edit summary which finally showed him the situation. And yes, he did do well in not sending ZL to A/VB, but still, not sending him to VB isn't vouch-worthy. Sending him to VB would've been an against, but not doign it isn't compellign enough for a vouch.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And I understand your reasons for not vouching for him. I don't care if you do or not, it's not my business. I just wanted to make sure you, and any others that saw it, wouldn't make their decision based off of incorrect information.-- SA 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions

Contents

Archive

Discussion

Tallies

Individual Pages per Promotion

Post implementation

Random changing of promotions

Guidelines overhaul

UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Promotion Guidelines Overhaul

Karek's Pettiness and Incorrectness

Rakuen

Lack of reasoning in "votes"

Rakuen

Rahrah

Misanthropy

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox