UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/A Helpful Little Gnome/2007-12-23 Promotion

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Administration » Sysop Archives » A Helpful Little Gnome » 2007-12-23 Promotion


Browse the Sysop Archives
Bureaucrat Promotions | Demotions | Misconduct (TBD) | Promotions | Re-Evaluations
2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019

This page is an archive of A Helpful Little Gnome's Promotions candidacy. If you wish to speak with this candidate, please use their Talk page. If you believe that the candidate has abused the abilities and privileges granted them by this promotion, please report them for misconduct.

A Helpful Little Gnome

It has been 48 days since my last attempt at this. In that time, I've hopefully fixed any issues brought up in the last bid (outlined below). Among that, I also created a help page which has, unsurprisingly, helped people. I implore you to click the link, I like the page hits. It makes me feel happy. You all know my contributions, but if you somehow forgot, or missed my last bid, I have a link here for you.

I admit when I'm wrong and I am not pointlessly stubborn when it comes to debates. If I find someone that can't sign properly, or is having trouble, I will try to help them, although I do sometimes let them figure it out for themselves, as that's how we learn. By struggling.

Vandalism, cut through the crap/overruling decisions, intricacies of guidelines etc

I've decided to think this through a little better and after re-reading one of Grim's slightly vulgar comments and other unanimous "votes", I've changed my stance on this issue. I will not rule any cases that might be considered "not straightforward." (Places where I may be biased because I know someone, or isn't listed in any policy or guidelines. Some impersonation issues in regards to suburb comments, anything to do with arbitration being kicked over to A/VB) Instead, I will provide comments on the matter if applicable. This does not, however, mean that I will allow a vandal to vandalize in obvious ways (clearing page etc) without doing anything about it. I know what's vandalism, and I know what constitutes a permaban or a warning. Regardless, I have gone through the guidelines/relevant policies and will continue to do so when needed.

Lastly, don't expect me to be the little commenter forever. I'm sure I can grasp things properly after a while.

Assylum type crap/screwing with administrative pages

This has been a past problem, a problem that was fixed sometime before my last promotions bid. I'd just like to mention that I still don't do this. I can't fix this any futher. Find another reason, please.

Involvment in policy discussions, community debates

I found this to be the largest issue for me, as it is a big part of point 3 for the guidelines for system operator requests and frankly, is just a good thing to do. I'm not quite sure if I've addressed this to the extent that Karek and others outlined, but I hope it's been enough. You can find my comments and suggestions in all recent policy discussion and elsewhere (and I say more than just yep (although I still say yep from time to time)). I also get involved in other things that aren't in the UDWiki namespace, specifically about locations (I like 'em) and suggestion policy stuff. I vote on almost every suggestion and I don't limit myself to just saying "above." I may suggest fixes from time to time on the talk page or in my vote, but I haven't, and never will, make an official suggestion.

Fix your sig

Done.

Do more sysopy things

I have taken more involvement in deletion cases, which means finding things to be speedily deleted and voting on deletion requests. I still submit vandal reports, and have gone into more detail when making them. And that's all I can really do that is relevant to sysop abilities. Oh, I know how to move stuff. Yay.

What sysop task do you see yourself focusing on most?/Why do you want to become a sysop?

I plan on declaring war on the injustice that is page protecting. I find that to be the area that takes the longest to get the job done and the most neglected. There is also hundreds, billions, bazilions of permanently banned accounts that a) don't have the Wanker template and b) do not have sub pages, talk pages and the main user pages protected. There is also many spamminated/removed suggestions that aren't protected. Now, I understand that it isn't mandatory to protect it right away, but only after it gets voted on after closing. Fix the problem before the problem arises, I say.

I can't really elaborate more on why exactly I want to become a sysop. The reason still remains that I'd like to help out this wiki more as I don't exactly have much more to do in my spare intarwebz time. I have an attachment to this wiki, I guess.


Yadayada. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Third vouch received 04:08, 23 December 2007

  • Vouch - we could use more active sysops--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 07:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - Yeppers. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 07:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - As I said last time, though if anything he has improved over the last 48 days.--SeventythreeTalk 08:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch — I think we can trust him with the mop and bucket. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - I trust you. DanceDanceRevolution 01:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Against - Same reasons as last time. You just dont have the personality to be a sysop (I could go into a lot greater detail but it would merely be misconstrued as a personal attack), and the lack of protection on pages isnt an issue. If someone edits them, we revert and slap a protection on it, otherwise we leave them. Same with userpages of banned people, except that we report them for vandalism, revert it and protect it. The protections scheduling on these was done to allow a sysop to respond to problems without bureacratic nonsense, rather than as a blanket kill everything solution. There isnt a problem with it, and one wont arise, and if someone tries to start something, they will get banhammered.
    To summarise: You dont have the personality type to be a sysop. You have not changed since your last bid, and your latest attempt at justification is demonstrably an irrelevant load of crap. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 08:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Against - All the same reasons as the last bid, it's been 48 days nothing significant can change in that time and its a rather short while, especially when applying for something like Sysop. Give it more time.--Karekmaps?! 10:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Against Your own comments about how you would handle vandlism. If you arn't willing to make any 'controversal' decisions then we don't need a wussy mod. Grow some balls and come back and you may get my vote. Omega 00:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • in favor of promotion I believe him more then suited. His only real missteps were in the beginning and were never more then a bit annoying. Seeing that it's been a while now I don't think that could be counted against him. Other then that I see no problems with a promotion at all. I don't think he'll misuse the extra tools, or create drama as a sysop. We've got enough controversial and ballsy mods. A low-key one never hurts.-- Vista  +1  00:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Against - 48 days is not long, I think the consensus was for you to wait rather longer than that. That is a big reason I can't support your bid. Now, I must admit to a major ambivalence in regards to the comments about you not being suited because you can't make "controversial decisions"... Frankly, while I understand the rationale behind that -- and agree with it in large part -- I think the last thing the wiki needs is more drama-mongering... Which speaks in your favour. On the other hand, AHLG/TZ, I have to agree that there is something missing... a certain level of resolve or focus or "stepping head of the crowd" kinda quality that you are lacking, or that isn't apparent... That's not a bad thing, and I don't mean it as a personal attack, but I think it makes you not ready to be a sysop yet. More experience... more time... dealing with admin stuff, etc., all the things you hope to do as a sysop, keep doing as the respected and outstanding user that you are, we need people like you.... And perhaps sometime down the road (more than 1-1/2 months, though) you will make a damn fine sysop. --WanYao 07:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - If you have Vista's backing, I don't see why I should hold you back. --Amanu Jaku 10:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - voted for him last time and will continue to support him as long as the gnome behaves ;) His statement about making comments only on contentious issues is probably a good thing if it gradually changes when he becomes more used to the procedure, everyone makes mistakes and as long as he steps in when needed I see no problem (even Grim has taken a step back recently to avoid drama, and thats mostly a good thing!) In everything else I think he will make an excellent new janitor. --Honestmistake 11:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - i could hold your involvement with the asylum and that thingy with the deletions page against you, but i believe you would do a good job as a sysop. That said, i would also vouch 73 and nalikill if they ran for sysop. You guys have displayed care for this community and interest in its maintenance, and that is enough for a vouch. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • High Five - Time has past, and I think you've proven yourself now. As Vista said it was early on that you screwed up a few times, and you have clearly learned and grown from your mistakes. You are definitely responsible enough. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 20:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - Although I hope you're not serious about adding the wanker template to people's pages. --Toejam 01:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The Template:Wanker is merely a combined Template:Protect and Template:Banneduser with a slight adjustment to the Banneduser template. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Puts on serious face for serious business. The content's fine, the only problem is the name is an insult. When the wiki bans vandals, we're not trying to get vengeance, rather the wiki is doing what it needs to to protect itself (See UDWiki:Vandalism.) Insults are out of line with that principle. Further, they can have unintended consequences. While I'm sure the vandals deserve to be insulted, it's unlikely to be constructive or ethical to do so. --Toejam 06:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you should take a look at what the Wanker template does...Example. See? all it does is have an insulting name. Otherwise it's perfectly acceptable.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, the rendered template looks perfectly fine to me, the problem I have with it is that because of the name, use of the template will be seen as name-calling, which is understandable if your editable userpage looks like this. We don't want to make people angry and so provoke them into further vandalism. --Toejam 04:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Hehe. It'd be fine to make an identical template with a more proper name, I suppose.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Vouch - The wiki should have a gnome in their sysop garden. --Akule School's in session. 15:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - all abored the vouch express.--'BPTmz 16:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - eminently qualified. --Pavluk A! E! 16:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - Perfectly qualified for the job. --User:Axe27/Sig 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - He's been civil. -- BoboTalkClown 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Against - 48 days is cutting it a little short, isn't it? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I will ravage your lands and enslave your people, mudkip fiend! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Against - Counting off the days were we? – Nubis 15:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    - Well, the average time an involved user stays active is less then 6 months. That makes a promotion retry after a month and a half is quite reasonable, especially as the original bid was reasonably wel received and the bureaucrat in question asked him to put [him]self forward again in the near future.-- Vista  +1  15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Since when is the average/minimum all that's expected of sysops? --Karekmaps?! 15:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    When the inactive sysops policy failed?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 16:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Zing -- boxy talk • i 16:15 28 December 2007 (BST)
    +1.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 17:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - I vouched in the previous promotion attempt, and I still feel the same way. As long as the Gnome is committed to making the wiki better, and serving on the Administration pages, then I'm for the bid --Ryiis 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Against - what they said....screw flanders!----SexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 15:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch--Jed 10:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - Really quite helpful.--Nick 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch - A strong pillar in our community.--Novascotia 19:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vouch- Because. -- BKM 00:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Against - this gnome is great, but likes cats far too much. Until you start creating templates of catburgers and great feline deaths of all time.....--Crabappleslegalteam 03:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    I actually hate cats and strive to huff as many kittens as possible. I put cat pictures, or lolcats, to mock them and remind me as to how pitiful they are. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Remember boys and squirrels, the orange ones fvck yous up real good!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Vouch - Looks like he's genuinely made an effort to fix any problems from last time. That alone gets my vote. -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 11:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Vouch - You've cleared up my doubts since last time. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  20:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Vouch - --The Envoy 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Vouch - You certainly qualify in the "I want it badly" and I care a lot about the game and the wiki category. I'm going to vouch for you because I'm ready to try some different personality approaches with Sysops - given my stark disagreement with some other's vision of what the current ideal example is.--Squid Boy 11:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    You do realize that this is not voting and number of vouches/againsts does not have anything to do with success of promotion bid, right? --~~~~ [talk] 12:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    I do - thanks very much for both correcting my use of the word 'vote' - which I have now changed to vouch - and for providing an example of the kind of nonsensical anti-contribution I so detest.--Squid Boy 13:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Vouch - The help page is helpful, the random crap seems to have been left behind. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Vouch - He's reasonable and keen. He took some ardent criticism during his last bid well, and (now that I've seen him about the wiki) he seems capable of avoiding drama in favour of balanced discussion, whilst remaining good humoured and natured. Also, the sysop team could do with some fresh air / new blood. It's beginning to smell badly of clique, and firmly closed doors. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I dont understand. They dont seem that cliquish to me, except where they are trying to burn me at the stake. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, aye, internally, it's a hotbed of in-fighting. But, when it comes to accepting new blood, there seems to be some heavy resistance. Maybe it's just my perspective. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
        • But they ARE you...--Jed 11:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Vouch - After all, I thought his latest candidacy was going to be successful. It's just fair for willing users that gained community's trust to be able to use the Sysops tools, and the Gnome did more than that already. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Vouch - Has always been friendly and helpful... --/~Rakuen~\ 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Vouch - I see his name bloody everywhere! There's only a handful of wiki-addicts that I recognize by their amount of activity, & most of them are already SysOps. AHLG is one of the exceptions in that he isn't a SysOp. Plus, I agree w/ Funt Solo in that all the SysOps appear to be (from the outside atleast) in some sort of frat'. Maybe I'm wrong in my perception, but well-deserved "new-blood" would be welcomed in my eyes. -- Canker Sore|CK | GC | ZHU | MEM | 05:14, 05 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Vouch - You seem like a nice guy. I think you'd be a good Sysop. --Hhal 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Promotion bid sucessful. Just on the protections thing, I think it is perhaps a good idea to protect, at least, all the suggestions pages now that they all have their own page (you'll have to check if that requires A/PT requests or is a scheduled protection). It would be quite easy to slip a rejected suggestion into the peer reviewed category without someone noticing. It's not like anyone is going to have all of them on their watchlists (as could have been done when peer reviewed was a page to itself that needed suggestions editing into it). As to standing back from A/VB for a while... quite frankly I don't feel like we're getting enough feedback from the existing sysops. Feel free to voice your opinion, even if you choose not to "push it" until you settle in -- boxy talk • i 11:23 6 January 2008 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Sysop_Archives/A_Helpful_Little_Gnome/2007-12-23_Promotion&oldid=2088834"