UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/WanYao/2009-09-13 Promotion

Administration » Sysop Archives » WanYao » 2009-09-13 Promotion

This page is an archive of WanYao's Promotions candidacy, which was withdrawn.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

13 September 2009

We're down to nine sysops, effectively seven with computer problems and a soon to be resolved misconduct case. And of those seven, at least two are frightened of drama, a trait that is reprehensible in a sysop. Accordingly we need new sysops, and given that I'm never going to be promoted while Boxy holds the position of 'crat, we may as well have Wan.

Wan has been around for years, shows a clear understanding of policy and procedure and is working to resolve contentious issues rather than leave ambiguity as past sysops have. His contributions show him to be extremely active, a trait desired by the community given the unilateral negative outpouring on Daranz's A/RE. He has been attempting to maintain NPOV on suburb pages for more than a good while now to improve the wiki, and has shown a willingness to engage, and if necessary argue, with any user on matters of principle within policy and misconduct proceedings.

I shall segregate the input section into vote type for this bid, to see if it improves clarity. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:18, 13 September 2009 (BST)

I'll deal with this properly when I'm less hungover...... --WanYao 15:00, 13 September 2009 (BST)

See the talk page for the discussion that was here. Cyberbob  Talk  04:54, 13 September 2009 (BST)

Third vouch received 05:06, 13 September 2009 (BST), bids ends 05:06 27 September (BST) or if declined by candidate. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:25, 13 September 2009 (BST)

Opening statement - I think the fact that I am responding to votes/comments means that, in spite of strong opposition from certain quarters, I'm accepting the nomination. For my statement I'd actually like to refer you to two past sysop nominations -- the first of which I declined, the second of which I would have accepted excepted for the fact that it took place during a period of absence from the game. I'm still the same person as the one described in those nominations so I think I'll let the very gracious words of others stand as my "statement". In meantime I'll be taking questions from the press... --WanYao 21:59, 13 September 2009 (BST)

Withdrawn Enough. --WanYao 12:51, 15 September 2009 (BST)

---

• Vouch - Although not as pretty, funny or intelligent as me, Wan would make a safer and more suitable sysop than others already in the position. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:18, 13 September 2009 (BST)
• Against - See now I was just thinking that we might be in need of an extra sysop or two. Unfortunately Wan is Not Good. Cyberbob  Talk  04:21, 13 September 2009 (BST)
• Against - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. no.--CyberRead240 04:28, 13 September 2009 (BST)
• Vouch - I disagree with some of his ideas on a/pd, but have no problem working with him. He has the best interest of the wiki at heart, I'm sure -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:43 13 September 2009 (BST)
• Abstain - This vote may change pending others votes and my thinking. Nothing against you Wan, I just want to see Iscariot cry and complain if this doesn't go his way or else I'd vouch now.--SirArgo ^Talk 04:48, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  Vouch - Hell, he would be a nice equation to the team. Like it or not, enough of the newer fairly active users seem to agree with him most of the time--SirArgo ^Talk 05:51, 13 September 2009 (BST)

• Against - Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:01, 13 September 2009 (BST)
• Tentative Vouch - As long as he commits to editing the wiki and actually reads the whole story of what he's participating in. I don't want to have to fight more of this bantering. Thankfully though, his new PD is being controlled in a more workable and co-operative manor, which is why I like to think Wan has ridden of the only real problem I had with him this year- him not having the time nor effort to read the argument before backfiring. I trust him now. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:06, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  "if it's being used against someone I don't like it's okay because I HATE THEM SO MUCH THEY DESERVE IT" --ddr Cyberbob  Talk  05:14, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  Is there ever a time when someone has an opinion that you don't put down to sheer, petty bias? Don't bother answering, its rhetorical. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:18, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  Okay then Mr Neutrality, explain to me how you can describe the manner in which Wan handled his policy discussion as being "workable and co-operative" when a very sizeable chunk of his posts there have been anything but. Cyberbob  Talk  05:21, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  That's like, just your opinion bro--CyberRead240 05:41, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  Actions speak louder than words and my preference is that he reworks the policy to the wishes of those interested. Beyond that I don't give a shit how much he whinges. Personally though, I don't care about this bid enough to argue for Wan any further, that's his job. I simply wish to vouch him this time. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:44, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  As I said in response to Condraka's vote, that policy "dicussion" wasn't a discussion... it was a forum for launching personal attacks. And I was supposed to just sit there and accept that -- along with people trying to completely castrate the intention of my policy -- with a smile and a well-lubed asshole? No. No fucking way. Now if you think that's a bad trait in a sysops... that and having little tolerance for, and I quote myself, "troll-children", then vote against me, go nuts. --WanYao 15:06, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  Personal attacks aside, you refused to address (or even acknowledge) any moderately and politely addressed points/opinions, if they had any sort of ground against your own. I trust a sysop to not just ignore a well-addressed point and rebut with the same stale unachievable argument, it is non-productive in the parts where sysopship counts heavily. So, having said that, if you think such behaviour is justifiable, I'll take your offer on- Against. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:24, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  No. I dealt with reasonable criticisms and arguments that didn't just blindly reject the idea out of hand, or which didn't attempt to turn the policy into something completely different from what it was intended to be. That "discussion" almost immediately became a "flame and troll WanYao" session. And then cyberbob goes and posts a headline quote at the top of the page, which you seem to think was a "neutral" action? And you expect I should have sat back and accepted such totally outrageous and unprofessional behavior? When faced with the kind of "diabolical opposition", I didn't bend over. I got mad. But apparently this is unacceptable behavior, according to you. So, perhaps you're right... and I sincerely thank you very for voting Against... perhaps I'm not cut out to be a member of your team.... at least not as you envision it. --WanYao 15:56, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  Sigh. Cyberbob? Who mentioned Cyberbob? I don't care how you respond to Cyberbob, don't you dare try and twist my words to suggest I ever did. But you use the term "troll-children" as a blanket term so you don't have to respond maturely to reasonable, logical arguements, like this, where I tried to genuinely talk you into making it a workable policy. You don't want to budge on it? Fine, but that doesn't give you a one-way pass to just pretend those points and opinions never existed, and then get surprised when you cop flak for it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:08, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  You and a few others seem to be determined to use that one policy discussion to assassinate my character. Ok... Let's keep looking at how it went.

  I mentioned cyberbob in this because one thing he did in that "discussion" was to vandalise the discussion page by putting an out of context -- and largely irrelevant -- quote as a headline at the top of the page. There was that... there was the constant tirade of personal attacks (led by cyberbob and other goons), there were people trying to get me to accept changing the policy to something I never intended it to be -- and that includes your suggestion/comment, yes... you were suggesting a different policy... but according to you, I'm supposed to just take all that good-naturedly???! lol ... Well, as it was, I just walked away from the wiki for a little while, and let the policy die....

  Sure, looking back on it, I didn't handle that discussion well. But how else should one have responded? Go back and look at it yourself... Here's one of the earliest comments:

  • "I hate voting. You can not make voting fair.... --– Nubis NWO 23:10, 18 July 2009"
  • Then later comes shit like this.... "COMMON SENSE! LOL. SYSOPS AREN'T HUMAN! WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO THEIR OPINIONS! WE WANT THEM PUNISHED FOR PUTTING UP WITH OUR SHIT AND NOT SMILING AND TAKING IT LIKE WE THINK THEY SHOULD! HOW FUCKING DARE THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE WAY THIS PLACE IS RUN? IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT - IT'S ABOUT WHATEVER THE FUCKING DRAMA OF THE MOMENT IS AND HOW IT CAN BENEFIT THE ASSHOLES THAT STIRRED IT UP. ASSHOLES THAT I MIGHT ADD ARE TOO MUCH OF FUCK UPS TO ACTUALLY GET INTO A POSITION OF "power" ON HERE BECAUSE THEY WERE ABSENT FROM THE WIKI FOR TOO FUCKING LONG. AN ASSHOLE THAT ACTUALLY HAD A DECENT AMOUNT OF SUPPORT, BUT WALKED AWAY AND NOW WANTS TO COME BACK AND TELL PEOPLE HOW IT SHOULD BE RUN! YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHO SHOULD BE MAKING POLICY. FUCKSTICK.-- #99 DCC 02:31, 21 July 2009 (BST)"
  • and ""Peace, Bread, Land. All power to the Soviets". Even if 100% Of users Agree on an idea it does not make the idea an inherently good one. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 12:13, 19 July 2009 (BST)"

And then there was cyberbob...

• And you're sitting there criticising my behavior and comportment in that kind of collective atmosphere. Wow! --WanYao 16:40, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  u mad? Cyberbob  Talk  18:21, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  I stand behind my statement because it seems like that is exactly what you are doing.-- #99 ^DCC 22:15, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  Didn't I just say I didn't care what you said in relation to the aggressive non-constructive comments? One thinks you'll never understand what I've been talking about. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:01, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  So what if we were trying to propose a different policy? If Policy A is a bad idea, what's wrong with suggesting Policy B, which is similar to Policy A, but fixes some of it's flaws (in this case, voting.) There's nothing wrong with suggesting alternate solutions to the same problem. You've also listed three comments that were hardly demonstrative of the discussion. What about this, and this, and this? It was the fact that you never actually told us why voting was a better system to the crat system that drove us up the wall, and couldn't be bothered to respond to posts that asked just that (and if you did, it was a one-liner, or you completely missed the point.) Linkthewindow  Talk  12:08, 14 September 2009 (BST)

  Yes, I did tell you all why I wanted it to be a vote. I said it over and and over and over again: I was unsatisfied with the police policing themselves and wanted the community to have the direct power to recall sysops. So who was it who wasn't listening?....... That was the the whole point and raison d'etre of the policy -- its foundation, its core concept. You may disagree with that concept, but I was NOT being "unreasonable" in defending that idea, in sticking to my guns about something I believed in... But you all were being unreasonable in demanding that I abandon the idea. Oppose my idea, fine, but call me names because I stuck by something I believed in and refused to abandon a principle? Well, that's pretty lame imo. --WanYao 12:37, 14 September 2009 (BST)

• Abstain I haven't seen enough of Wan's recent behavior to really be sure of his current behavior and intentions. But the "discussions" I had with him a while back over a policy showed me that he can pretty much be closed to the "other side's" discussion, even refusing to read their posts. But I can't be sure if he's still like this or if he's changed, hence the abstain. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:30, 13 September 2009 (BST)
• Against recent actions and statements by Wan indicate an inability to act mature when presented with opinions diabolically opposed to his own regardless of any validity those opinions may have. the very fact that Izzy is putting him up for promotion makes the whole bid circumspect. Conndraka^{TAZM CFT} 06:35, 13 September 2009 (BST)

• When Conndraka speaks of my response to positions "diabolically opposed" to my own, he's hit on the truth! Yes, I shut out people who take positions which are, at best devil's advocatings -- at worst, opposing me for the sheer sake of opposing. When speaking of my "intransigence", I believe Conn et al. are referring to my attitude during the "debate" on my sysops recall policy. But that wasn't a "debate". It was a roast. I was expected to accept "critiques" which were nothing but personal flames and "changes" which went totally against the intent of the policy. Then I was painted as the villain for not playing along with that... "diabolical opposition" indeed. --WanYao 14:58, 13 September 2009 (BST)

• Abstain I am going to wait for Wan's response for now.--Thadeous Oakley 10:17, 13 September 2009 (BST)
• Against - As Cyberbob. plus, he hasn't tended to accept these in the past.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:40, 13 September 2009 (BST)
• Abstain - But only because I think he's going to decline. If he doesn't, then Vouch --Haliman - Talk 15:16, 13 September 2009 (BST)
• AGAINST -I generally believe as bob,... but on my own sidenote, I haven't had enough personal experience with Wan to vote for him. -Poodle of doom 16:46, 13 September 2009 (BST)
• AGAINST lol – Nubis ^NWO 22:31, 13 September 2009 (BST)

  CHECK USER FTW! -- #99 ^DCC 22:34, 13 September 2009 (BST)

• Against - As Bob. And myself. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 22:54, 13 September 2009 (BST)
• Vouch Wan does have a slight tendency to refuse to compromise but he is almost always fair and is mostly willing to at least hear others out.... At the end of the day though I think it is important to remember that he would be only 1 of several sysop voices and his "opinions" would help bring balance to what is becoming a very one sided team. --Honestmistake 23:53, 13 September 2009 (BST)
• Against - Too rash for me to trust him with the buttons. --Midianian 07:11, 14 September 2009 (BST)
• Against - Actually bothered to do some comment digging. Unless someone can point me to mitigating circumstances and/or examples of "rising above", I would have to go with DDR's summation.-Wulfenbach 09:17, 14 September 2009 (BST)
• 'Against - He's never had anything even resembling a coherent non-intransigent discussion regarding a policy or rule and not for clarity of the case. He's often wrong, he's often claiming nonexistent historical precedent, and he's shown no ability to take the time to asses a situation past or present. If he's promoted expect all decisions to be driven solely by his opinion of what he wants done regardless of relevance or correctness in reasoning. That's not to say he isn't worth having around but he's certainly shouldn't be elevated in this manner especially when his behavior lately is reminiscent of the well known misbehavior of the man who made his bid. --Karek^maps?! 13:27, 17 September 2009 (BST) Bid has been withdrawn already -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:05 17 September 2009 (BST)