UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/WanYao/2009-02-22 Promotion

Administration » Sysop Archives » WanYao » 2009-02-22 Promotion

This page is an archive of WanYao's Promotions candidacy, which was unsuccessful. If you wish to speak with this candidate, please use their Talk page.

Wan Yao

I would like to nominate Wan Yao. He has always been very active on the wiki and is one of those people that you think already is a sysop. He was instrumental in negotiating a fair NPOV version of the Dunell Hills page between DHPD and the Dead. That right there should qualify him for sainthood. There is no section of the wiki that he hasn't been active on and his contributions are always well thought out.

One of the "concerns" about sysopshipness is periods of inactivity. But I say that even if there is a gap in his contributions that he has been on the wiki for years. I think it is much better to have a strong and consistent sysop that might go MIA for a week or two than to have one that is on all the time and never gets involved in "drama" or controversy.

I don't really know what to say about nominating Wan because everyone on here should be familiar with him. I just hope that he would accept the nomination. But if I need to I can go into a Sham Wow like spiel about how awesome he is. Does this count as a sysop vouch or do we have to wait for another one? --– Nubis ^NWO 07:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The return of Wan Yao

I dunno if this is too late at this point. :( I was offline for a while due to technical problems with my telco, then in addition to IRL, I got addicted a new game I downloaded... ;P Anyway... Thanks, nubis, for the nomination... I do accept, if it's not too late.

I've skimmed the comments, and I'll take a look at them soon, and reply -- individually, where appropriate, or generally up here. But I'll start with the "inactivity" issue... No, I have not been as active as I once was in-game or in-wiki or even in the meta of late. And I don't expect to ever go back to the manic levels of involvement some of you once knew from me. This is a disadvantage in a way, because I may lose touch with certain things... On the other hand, I think it's actually a GOOD thing insofar as it has the effect of keeping me distant from drama.

Beyond that, though sometimes I make errors of judgement or in "policy", I think these tend to be minor. You can disagree if you wish, so be it... As others have pointed out, I do think I understand policy as well as most anyone else, and contrary to the comments of some of the (yup) trenchcoaters, the last thing I would do is abuse my powers, sheeesh...

That's all, for the moment. --WanYao 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is too late; the two weeks from when the bid was put forward have passed. Suicidal and Boxy are just being lazy >_>

Besides which, even if it wasn't too late I really don't think the wiki needs yet another basically-inactive sysop, a la Thari and Swiers. Also nice labelling everyone who voted Against with the trenchcoater brush. --Cyberbob 07:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the two weeks seems to be from the time that they satisfy the criteria for being moved down to under community discussion, and that starts after they accept the nomination. True, this perhaps should have been removed before now due to the lack of an acceptance from Wan, but seeing as he's accepted now, let it go the course (2 weeks from acceptance). Without an increase in activity he wont be promoted, and such a long absence will not benefit his case, so he has a bit of ground to make up now -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:11 9 March 2009 (BST)

The time limit for demotion for being inactive is 4 months without an edit (not SYSOP edit just any edit). If your complaint is about him being inactive then get that policy changed first. It's hardly fair to say that before you get promoted you have to be constantly editing yet once you are a sysop you can slack off for 4 months without a worry. Once again, I would rather have someone on the Admin pages that makes good decisions with some gaps in activity than people on there constantly that make very poor decisions.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I accept his reason for being unavailable (tech/telco problems), but while we don't demote sysops until they become very inactive, I think it's quite acceptable to require candidates for promotion to be active enough during their promotion to allow for "cross examination", at the very least -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:52 10 March 2009 (BST)

ITT the wiki is caving in because a user who has community support might possibly be given a day leeway. This is a dumb argument and would be a stupid reason to deny the bid in and of itself.--Karek^maps?! 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be more a problem that he could miss this for so long. No one expects the Sysops to live on line but there seems little point promoting Wan just so he can wave the title around when he is online. An active Wan deserves the promotion but the community simply does not need another semi-inactive sysop, especially one so likely to get involved in contentious issues when he is here.--Honestmistake 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's fair enough that I haven't been active lately. And atm I am kinda busy IRL, so I might not end up being all that active in the near future, either. It's legit to reject this bid on that account, and have me reapply when and if I become more involved in the community again. --WanYao 11:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Who knows, by then you might have even grown out of your weird fascination with ellipses. --Cyberbob 11:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too, I never understood it though. If you decline the nomination instead, it won't really hurt you in the long run, and you could just run on your own when you feel ready. Nothing wrong with starting a bid on your own you know. :D --Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 13:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Making your own bid? Heresy!-- Adward  22:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

---

• Vouch - Didn't think he wants this, however. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this is going to have to become an abstain, for a few reasons, most notably his lack of recent activity (to be fair, if he's sick or something, I'll strike that bit,) and that he isn't very involved in the maintenance parts of the wiki. That said, he would make a great "moderator" sysop, but he doesn't seem to be active. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Reconsidering vote, due to the return of Wan. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

      coughnotvote D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

      I knew that, it's just easier to say vote :p Linkthewindow  Talk  11:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

      • Ether way, Weak Vouch it is. Although he's a tad inactive, he still makes good decisions. In the end, that's what counts. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Bid fails criteria four, as it did last time when Wan declined to stand. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Funny... b/c I actually said to Karek just a couple of days ago, after being asked a few times, "Ok, fine, I'll run for sysop...." - Wan Yao--– Nubis ^NWO 16:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Said 10 days ago. Wan has edited since then. He hasn't put up his own bid.... Until he posts here and states to the contrary, this is a Criteria 4 and you know it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Let's see, he makes a comment saying that he would run for sysop so we should automatically assume that he doesn't want to be a sysop.?.? BRILLIANT! With your clear reasoning and assumption of good faith I can see why you are a sysop ... oh, wai- And did you miss the point of the comment where the "gaps" in contributions were a concern? That means he won't be on here every day. Nice try. I was wondering what you would use to be against someone that deserves it as much as Wan. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Erm, come on. I expressed my interest in the position, but wasn't active for a while. And, there is no rule saying someone else can't nominate you. In fact, AFAIK it's kind of considered bad form to nominate yourself, which is why I didn't do it last month. --WanYao 17:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  It has never been considered poor form to nominate yourself. Your inactivity served to demonstrate a flaw in the sysop team, that of favourable bias towards those they like. This case should have been archived after a week of you not accepting and a new bid brought up when you'd returned. I pointed this out multiple times and was ignored even though the precedent was set by the person who nominated you. The fact that you chose to allow this bias to continue by accepting this bid that should have been archived highlights to me that you are happy to serve as a sysop that allows different rules for different users. This is unacceptable. My against now stands, but with the concrete reason I never thought would materialised when I originally casted it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  You really are talking out of your ass there (well, except for the self-nomination thing). I hate to repeat myself, so I'll just post this link. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against - Airhead. --Cyberbob 08:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - At this point there is no one I would vouch for more strongly. I talked to him about this before and he said he would accept a bid if nominated, so as always Iscariot is just talking out his ass. --Karek^maps?! 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Anyone who knows who Randy "The Ram" is.. deserves to be sysop--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 09:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Good guy, he deserves this. --D.E.ATalk 10:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Strongly. Always seems to talk shit that makes no sense.--DiscoInferno 10:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Who the fuck are you ? --– Nubis ^NWO 16:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  My question exactly.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  herp derp only wiki superstars get to be against promotion bids amirite guys? --Cyberbob 20:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, Bob. It has nothing to do with the fact that I checked his contributions and mainly see promotion votes and ALIM comments and wonder where he is getting this wealth of information on Wan. Because if he has such insight gained in the week he has been on this wiki then he has much to teach us.--– Nubis ^NWO 00:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  Allow me to introduce you to the concept of lurking. --Cyberbob 05:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  Allow me to introduce the concept of Tits or GTFO. No, wait a minute. I'll get back to you on that.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  I have been looking around on this wiki for a while, waiting for my exams to end before I actually got involved, as I feared that, like other wikis and forums, it would take up too much of my time if I actively contributed. I joined up after my yearly exams were over, but that doesn't mean I haven't been reading and watching for a lot longer. What does it matter what my contributions are anyway?--DiscoInferno 01:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  What it matters is exactly what I said about it. Your comment said nothing about how long you have been on the wiki lurking or otherwise. It said nothing about a specific event or comment from Wan. Your contributions show nothing that suggests an encounter with him. So either he made that much of an impression on you through something specific (which might be important for other people to know about since it seems to be a big enough deal that it made up your mind) or you are just a random asshole that feels the need to bitch about something. When I am against a candidate and strongly as you were, I post very specific reasons and explanations. It just sort of seems like the smart thing to do.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  Well considering this is not a vote, I guess the people in power would make the same assumption as you, and would render my words useless anyway.--DiscoInferno 09:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  I lurked here for a good five or six months before I actually joined. Lurking is pretty common thing, and I encourage it.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 11:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  You should link to ALiM when you write it, so people can easily find it from any page.--xoxo 08:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  If its me that was directed at, then no. If its the other guy...--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 10:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  Right, because everyone needs to read unfunny penis jokes. That's absolutely what the wiki needs. --Cyberbob 08:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch As the one who nominated him earlier...I hope he reconsiders and joins the team. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 11:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Seems like a guy whose opinion would help in defusing the minefield that is A/VB and A/M. --  RoosterDragon  13:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Power corrupts people.--ScouterTX 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  So who should it be given to?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  THE PEOPLE! Seriously, Wan is okay, but is this really necessary? I think we have enough "super-important (and self-important)" sysops etc. here --ScouterTX 05:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - Yep.-- Adward  16:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - Until he accepts the bid here. --Pestolence^(talk) 17:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Against - Due to his lack of activity (no edits since February 15th). If he comes back active, I'll gladly change my vote back. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Seems up to the job to me. --Papa Moloch 18:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - As Eddie. --Haliman - Talk 19:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against - I don't see him on very often anymore and I don't see him ever do anything really sysop like. He's a good guy, but I don't think he needs sysop powers.--SirArgo ^Talk 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Hopefully he'll accept this. Like SA, Wan is one of those people who has deserved a promotion for a long time now. -- Cheese 19:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Seems like he'd get good janitor-like work done, but I'm worried about him when it comes to A/VB and A/A. Edit: Seems he's gonna win, thus changed NIGGER to against for lulz --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 20:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  It's not a vote you unlulzy faggot. ;) --Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 23:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  balls, fixed--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 23:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - Despite the fact that I hate the guy I do agree with WOOT in that he would get shit done. If he abused A/VB, there is always A/M.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - now, put the gold in the basket. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - I think he'd make a pretty good sysop.--'BP^Tmz 22:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain he gets on my nerves.----Sexualharrison 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Quite a character, and a good addition to the team. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - A good guy, he's deserved this for a long time.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  I'm a good guy too, vouch me too pl0x?--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  General is holding his vote on you until the last minute when he can swoop in dramatically like and vote. WHOOOOSH! Ninja vote, thx. I'd do the same, but it would only be lame and I'd screw it up somehow. --– Nubis ^NWO 00:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  I can't really "vote" on these any more. I already miss it! Why couldn't you be moar likeable Nubis? Why?!?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  Never stopped boxy from voting. I can't be more likeable because 1 I am a goon and 2 I am an asshole (see above). Sorry.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Against A good guy who is not afraid of drama and is normally pretty balanced in his dealings. I think he would probably make a decent SYSOP but its well over a week now and he still hasn't responded so I have changed my vote... If he becomes active again though I would encourage him to go for it in the future.--Honestmistake 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• vouch Does good work, and will make good use of sysop powers Asheets 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against. Come over here and convince me Wan.--xoxo 07:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against If a man acts like authority, but is not authority, you do not hand him a gun; you charge him with impersonation. --Pyrranha 00:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Despite past troubles, I can't look past that Wan has done plenty of good for the wiki as a whole, and believe that he would be a decent sysop, should he wish it. --Private Mark 01:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - As many others, a good election for sysop. :) --LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 04:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch Im all for him ive seen him in game and ive seen him doing work on the wiki--Officer tommy 22:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against This guy is a douchebag. Nuff said Ioncannon11 20:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  Says the trenchie. The man 15:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - This guy is enthusiastic and has been very balanced in his enforcement of the NPOV rule on several pages. --FLZombie 03:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain – Candidate has not accepted nomination. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Quite possibly one of the best choices for a promotion. The man 15:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Wan Yao has always seemed a solid guy to me and deserves this --The Cop 22:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - Until Wan confirms he will accept the nomination. _■^■ 02:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Doesn't appear to be active. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - You haven't been really active lately, and haven't accepted the nomination yet. --ZsL 11:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch- Yay! --dgw 13:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch- As Ioncannon11. It's so necessary. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch- As Haliman, a very capable, pragmatic individual who tries to stay out of the stupid bs.--Garviel Loken^{No Pity! No Remorse! No Fear! Talk}22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Si. --Janus ^talk 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - At best he's biased. At worst, he's a troll. Plus, he's a douchebag.--Zombie Lord 07:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Come back when you have the time, there's no rush. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - I'm pretty sure that being a SysOp requires a sunnier disposition than the one WanYao has. Plus, from what I can see SysOps ofen deal with the errors of WikiNewbs, and this would probably cause WanYao no end of grief. Also, as Zombie Lord. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 02:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  grimgrimgrimgrimgrimgrim. and like 10 others.--xoxo 11:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  yupyupyupyupyup grim is definitely the right person to be using as an example of a good sysop yessir --Cyberbob 11:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  quote me the bit where blake mentioned good sysops again, i missed that bit.--xoxo 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  He's saying that sysops need to have a sunny disposition. You gave an example of a sysop that didn't who also happened to be a complete spaz. not saying you aren't on the right track but you might've found someone else to mention by name instead --Cyberbob 06:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  I just disagree with the statement that sysops need a sunny disposition at all. Grim was good for this place. I miss him :( --xoxo 06:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  stockholm syndrome itt --Cyberbob 06:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  i don't deny it. although i assure you i'd never miss boxy.--xoxo 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• From what I remember, this guy was pretty helpful and eager to please. If he's still the same, he'd make a good Sysop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dux Ducis (talk • contribs) 10:05, 21 March 2009.

Month long promotion bid

It's rocking my socks. Can this end now? Please? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll rule on this bid unless I hear back from SA in the next day or so. I've contacted him via his talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:03 24 March 2009 (BST)

Ah hell, I'll rule now. Wanyao, as good as you may be able to do or not do the job, your inactivity is a problem. You haven't made any edits since the tenth, and I believe, along with Boxy, that it's in our best interests that you reapply when you've been more active.

Bid Failed, archive in a couple days plz.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is beautiful coming from the Crats that let Karek's request for demotion sit for a week. I'm so glad that the line is being drawn on inactivity! --– Nubis ^NWO 22:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Boxy has a 7 day gap from March 10th to March 17th and SA has a 12 day gap from March 12th to March 24th. Way to lead by example!--– Nubis ^NWO 22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 7 and 12 days are perfectly comparable with ~40 days which were interrupted only to accept and comment on the nomination and to make one comment on another nomination. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The magic number is 4 months. 40 days < 4 months. Once again, why is the standard once you get the position less than the criteria to get the position in the first place? Do you have a witty and sarcastic explanation for that? --– Nubis ^NWO 22:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fuck yeah I do! :D. It's called "People throw a fit whenever we try to make more stricter requirements on keeping sysops status, because four months is over kill"--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

i do, and here it is --Cyberbob 22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply because people see demotion (even if it's only for inactivity) much more negatively than a rejected promotion bid (especially if it was only rejected for inactivity). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 23:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Because people who are trying to make up their mind as to whether to support this bid should be able to watch him in action. If he's not here for basically the whole bid (one that went twice as long as normal!), then users who don't constantly take note of the inter-personal interactions on the wiki wont be able to get a read on his personality, except via isolated incidents in his contributions history. A promotions bid is interactive. Wan also signaled that he would be less active, than he has been, in the future, and we shouldn't promote him without knowing what level of a comeback he will make, or if he drops right out (as plenty have before) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:59 25 March 2009 (BST)

Hay, at least I said wai I wuz gone. That's why we have two 'crats, so one can take a quick break for RL stuff and not have everyone stranded with lack of 'crat. It's not my fault boxy picked a bad time to leave too! Shame on him! :D --Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)