UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions/Archive2

Archived Promotions

Shouldn't both lists be alphabetized if one is? I really don't care if they are in cronological order or alphabetical order, so long as both are organized the same way. – Nubis ^NWO 00:13, 1 July 2006 (BST)

yeah I believe they should, I have a slight preference for a chronological ordering.--Vista 00:19, 1 July 2006 (BST)

I prefer chronological ordering in this case as well. I also think it should be marked if a bid was withdrawn or failed, since the two lists were combined. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:43, 1 July 2006 (BST)

Chronological order, definitely. I believe the two lists should be separate. Who combined them, anyway? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:10, 2 July 2006 (BST)

Quality vrs Quantity

First let me say I DO NOT want to develope an elitist class here, and I'll burn my own computer before I'd be a part of one... but could someone put up a Policy suggestion that encourages Kevin to consider the activity of those vouching for a mod nominee? You know just a little language re wording at the top indicating that even if someone gets 1000 vouches the final decision may not result in promotion. ( I would like to see any future Nom's be required to get an existing Mod to co-sponsor their promotion. Surely among all the differing views and styles among the existing mods one of us would be willing to speak up for just about anyone who's qualifide. ) Conndraka^{mod TCFT} 13:21, 13 August 2006 (BST)

Well I think that if the existing moderators are against a candidate then whoevers looking over the bid at the time would take that into consideration. Anyway if you want me to I can re-word it without going through red tape ect. It's only going to be a small change which would be fair and reasonable. Just change "Indication of trust in the candidate. We define this as a minimum of three other users (preferably users with at least 200 edits under their name), willing to vouch for the candidate's suitability for the role." to "Indication of trust in the candidate. We define this as a minimum of three other users (preferably users with at least 200 edits under their name and at least one moderator), willing to vouch for the candidate's suitability for the role." In most cases Cyberbob, Xoid are the first few to comment on the suitability, so if they are good enough then they'll easily get that vouch from a moderator. If no one has any objections I'll change it in about 3 or 4 days so time. (I'm busy this weekend) - Jedaz - 13:08/18/04/2024 08:58, 15 September 2006 (BST)

I think that sounds reasonable, and to earn Againsts from every one of us, the candidate would have to be pretty terrible. Even Jjames got vouches from Xoid and me (albeit just to spite Amazing). –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 16:59, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Thought they'd never be acted upon. They counted for less than a "hamtars!" from a nobody. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 17:04, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Boxy and whatever the poor guy has to do with past Mods

• Vouch? - Is it still a vouch after it gets moved down to community discussion? Anyway, this guy seems pretty nice and neutral, as well as having been around for a long time. Sounds like perfection incarnate to me. --Lachryma 04:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Don't go jinxing it. You know what happened to the last locations mod, right? –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Um...he gave precious wiki info to vandals? Or… he promoted someone without going through this process? I have no idea, please enlighten me.--Lachryma 04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Isn't Max the "last locations mod"? Jedaz did Location pages Lachryma? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  I have no idea. I just picked random bad stuff that I had read on the wiki. Perhaps this mysterious location mod did something even worse...--Lachryma 04:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Jedaz can't be because he didn't do any Locations page as I can see on his contributions, and Xoid may be a bit shy in mentioning him seeing how he screwed up in Jedaz ban. Probably he's talking about the almost forgotten Odd Starter, the poor guy that only gets remembered when someone needs to insult some part of the various rules and guidelines, altough the Guidelines per se changed recently: Now you can insult me, wheeee! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  He was actually speaking of himself. He ended up an evil old bureaucrat dominating the wiki, didn't ya hear? Him 'n' his cabal of evil followers. It's all on the mod con page. Haven't you heard? --Gage 04:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Huh, I missed the memo. That's pretty funny though, what Xoid initially said, once someone explained it. --Lachryma 05:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Darth and Max did locations, but not on the same scale as I did. Jedaz didn't really touch locations, IIRC. Conndraka isn't included due to the fact his locations were sub-stubs and pretty much had to be redone in their entirety. Novelty is included purely because he did most of the first pages, wrote the basis for LSG and worked on consolidating many of the sub-stubs into actual pages. That makes two, Novelty being the first, me being the second and most recent. Boxy would be third. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 05:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Damn, can I take my vouch back now? :-D --Darth Sensitive ^W! 05:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  I think Max work on the Locations page was respectable. I didn't know Darth by his work there, but Max yes. If he isn't cool enough for you... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Don't insult or argue with Xoid! You heard what Gage said!--Lachryma 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  For the record: I didn't say it, he did. =D --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Sage advice. I might just have to eat his soul now. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 05:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  I warned Matthew, but noooo...Then again, editing the wiki and dealing with its denizens would be easier without a soul...--Lachryma 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Being soulless isn't necessary, but it helps. :P –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 05:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Ooookay, that's vaguely disturbing. I'm going to go get a heap of crucifixes and thus protect my immortal wiki-soul. Perhaps I should put that revealing quote about being soulless on the Mod Conspiracy page, no? I'm sure they'd grab their pitchforks and torches then!--Lachryma 05:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  *gasp*… you mean they haven't already? –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 02:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  Well, okay, you have a point. Perhaps they'll add fuel to their torches and sharpen their pitchforks! Or maybe they want all mods to be soulless...--Lachryma 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  We've only just began to collect the kindlin' yet >:) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  You guys must be the slowest witch burners on the face of the planet. Xoid has admitted to barbarous soul eating/soul lacking ways, and you Mod Conspiracists just sit around and collect kindling. I think I'll go tell some other paranoid mob about Xoid's confession and let you guys rot.--Lachryma^☭ 06:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  After being mistycally eaten by Xoid, you're made free, never to fell regrets, remorse, pity or sympathy anymore! The only drawback is the constant tendency of little pieces of you to fall off. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  'Twas admirable. I was talking in terms of sheer scale, though. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 05:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed vouch

From the page: "Move any request that has 3 confirmed vouches under this header."

So, it's mods who confirm vouches? --Toejam 12:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a wiki, everybody does. Non-confirmed voucher are from sockpuppets, people without any edit history, people who are permabanned, etc. Not things you need to be a mod for to understand. The only leg up mods here have in confirming voucher is IP checking. but that never been necessary in promotions as people who need to resort to that sort of tactic wouldn't get promoted anyway.--Vista 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also it is worth noting that promotion is entirely up to the beaurocrat. All this is just to get people voicing there opinion to help him make up his mind. It's not an election, It's taking soundings, different users opinions may be weighted differently from each other.--Vista 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Matthewfarenheit

Bid successful -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 15:25, 16 June 2007 (BST)

Oh, I tought this was archived and I missed the opportunity, but now that I found there's at least something pointing out that I was promoted, I wanted to do this after refraining from replying any comment on my bid:

Thanks to all the guys that trust me after all what happened. I really didn't have any faith on the promotion bid, but (as I expressed on my now archived conversation with Vista) I had the sensation that I was not really needed anymore. The community has a lot of cool Sysops that can take care of the work without needing me, and the aggressive style in moderatorship is no more. Anyways, I just wanted to talk everyone that voted for me and assure those that voted against that, well, they were wrong. If not for pure politeness, I would spam everyone's talk page with a reply to your votes, but I better refrain of that =P. Thanks again! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 20:40, 16 June 2007 (BST)

Performance Review

Yeah I think we need another look at the policies again sometime soon, such as periods for sysops (ie 9 months or something) until re-election. Gets rid of the idle-outs... --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 14:54, 8 May 2007 (BST)

I'm going to propose somthing like that as soon as my re/de-confirmation has ended. It's partly why I did as well.--Vista ⁺¹ 15:00, 8 May 2007 (BST)

Sooo, what's the best way to archive these "performance reviews"? Doesn't really fit under the heading "promotions" -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:01, 24 May 2007 (BST)

I'll just stick it in my original promotion case page, under a new header.--Vista ⁺¹ 13:04, 24 May 2007 (BST)

Fairy nuff -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:09, 24 May 2007 (BST)

Restored Bid

I've un-withdrawn Cyberbob's bid. He put himself up for a performance review, saying he'd step down if it was unfavorable, and then when it started to go sour he withdrew it. I was under the idea that he would go with the community decision in this case. I really think the community should have the final say in this, and that he shouldn't be able to make himself look good by putting himself up for reelection and then withdrawing it. That's cheap.--Gage 08:06, 12 May 2007 (BST)

I said I'd step down if it was unfavourable? Where? It's my bid, and I can withdraw it as I please until someone in a position of authority tells me different. --Cyberbob ^{Sys U! Didn't Gage quit...?} 08:36, 12 May 2007 (BST)

Anyways, don't worry. All I'm doing is postponing it. I've realised I jumped the gun, and will resubmit myself in a month or two. --Cyberbob ^{Sys U! Didn't Gage quit...?} 08:39, 12 May 2007 (BST)

If you withdraw it now, I'll be voting strongly against in any subsequent bid, be it one of your own choosing or not -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 09:52, 12 May 2007 (BST)

Whoa, drama bomb here. As anyone else, Cyberbob shouldn't be forced to put himself for review unless it's stated by policy, and it shouldn't be against the rules for him to withdraw his bid, no matter how we feel about his latest moves (withdrawing the review, putting himself for demotion and deleting that demotion request in a flash). If Gage considers this behaviour "cheap" he should take this personal issue with Cyberbob alone, not trying to drag him to unfavorable grounds based on claims of fairness for a public execution. Anyways, after the latest feedback I got by browsing the wiki, a policy about making such reviews mandatory would do very well now and may be on its way.

In any case, if Cyberbob is forced to wait for community consensus on the issue (and for what I read Boxy doesn't agree with that), it would be the same for Gage to be forced to keep his word and leave the wiki, and me too when I gave my word, and Vista, and maybe so many other users. Gage, for a guy that was leaving, you sure get involved in a lot of drama. Chill, both of you! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 10:11, 12 May 2007 (BST)

Well, as far as I'm concerned, if bob wants to withdraw his election again, he can, and Gage shouldn't restore it. It won't reflect favorably on him, but until regular elections are required... what can ya do -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 10:21, 12 May 2007 (BST)

Eh, don't get so worked up about it, guys. I'm outta here, as of pretty much now. I doubt that I'll be back. If I should ever return, it won't be for a long time (unlike Gage, I actually plan to stick to this resolution). --Cyberbob ^{Sys U!} 13:07, 12 May 2007 (BST)

Well done GAGE, looks like even in retirement you have driven another longstanding community member off the board... have you considered politics? you do Tony Blair proud... That said; come back Bob, all is not forgiven but at least give the people time to moan about you and then if you are un-elected realise how much we miss you! --Honestmistake 02:02, 14 May 2007 (BST)

You do realize that is sounded like Cyberbob was going to have a wiki holiday anyway, whether this drama caused it sooner or later? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 02:20, 14 May 2007 (BST)

Hagnat/Nalikill Edits

Okay, I've weakened it to a guideline, rather than official policy. Which is all anyone can make it without a vote. Nalikill 19:55, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Less is more is something i like to follow. Your line is simply saying what mine did, but with some extra words on it. Anyway, i am fine with it as it is now. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:59, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Cyberbob for Mod

• I thought this was supposed to be a vote on whether Bob could fulfill the duties that go with the promotion? Its not a popularity contest its merely a vote to say yeah or neigh to his WIKI skills and his reliability in using them to keep the site running! Many mods can be asses sometimes but that does not stop them doing a good job. I am (was) the first to say he can be obnoxious (he even agrees) does that mean he cannot do the job? NO. If it did we would have to sack evryone but BOXY and the few mods who so avoid drama that no-one knows who they are!!! --Honestmistake 02:22, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Everyone are expressing their concerns and I hardly note an Against vote on Cyber's prom bid that doesn't express at least a valid one. If someone thinks a guy is biased, unstable or whatever enough to don't deserve the confidence you're given with the Sysop tools, then it's a valid concern: I doubt it would be convenient to have such an user ruling over an A/VB case. I'm actually more concerned about the votes that say "yes for the hell of it" or "because it would be interesting". That's irresponsibility. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:38, 15 September 2007 (BST)

It really doesn't matter what their opinions of him are, Boxy and the other 'crats get the final say, all the "vote" does is show them what the community feels about the potential sysop.--Karek^maps?! 07:44, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Ditto. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 14:46, 15 September 2007 (BST)