UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/A Helpful Little Gnome/2007-11-05 Promotion

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Administration » Sysop Archives » A Helpful Little Gnome » 2007-11-05 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, which was unsuccessful. If you wish to speak with this candidate, please use their Talk page.

Hello everyone! I first joined this wiki back in early February and have probably made more than 5,000 edits (before the purge, you can count, I guess). I haven't been a drama creator, although I suppose some would object with all that random feth stuff that happened some time ago (I haven't contributed to that for months). I like to think that I have a good understanding of wiki code, as you can tell by my user page. I have contributed much to the community and wiki, as you can see below:

  1. Numerous edits, fixes and member updates to the Tikhon Medical group.
  2. Complete overhaul of the main and all sub pages of the above group.
  3. Linking, code fixes, spell checks on some suburbs and various pages.
  4. Added every single bulletin board to every Suburb that didn't have them (roughly 4/5th, rough estimate).
  5. Making direct links to the proper pages, instead of a disambiguation. (Quite tedious).
  6. Lots of Welcome Newbie templates!
  7. Sometimes fixes suggestions, reports vandals and generally contributes positively when a vandal report is made (when applicable).
  8. Helping new people, mentoring, pointing out mistakes (and making sure its fixed), etc.
  9. Autoblocked or fixed nearly all locations for Ruddlebank, Foulkes Village, Old Arkham, Spicer Hills, Mornington, North Blythville, Lerwill Heights, Brooksville, Danversbank, Fryerbank, Buttonville, Scarletwood, some of Wyke Hills, Wray Heights Pegton, Pennville and Dentonside. Roughly 1,115 blocks. Yes, I've really done that many.
  10. Incredible amounts of spam that eventually led to the page Assylum (yes, I will show you this part too but I assure you that anything in the future is done on the talk page).

Please take your time and look through it all. Remember, you can always check my contributions for verification.

In wikipedia terms, I'm what you would probably call a wikignome, someone who makes little fixes and relatively unnoticeable changes that keep the wiki running (excepting location blocking, which makes recent changes cry). I generally don't get mad at people or angry, and when I do it doesn't last for long. If there's anything I missed, questions etc then feel free to ask. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. Vouch - A strong candidate. Has the wiki-editng skills to lend a big hand to maintainance and is a balanced, conciencious user who doesn't get swayed or involved in senseless drama. Promoting him could only be a good thing.--SeventythreeTalk 00:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Vouch - Again, reconfirming that I received the pie. Did he mention that he's an all around good person that realizes and corrects his mistakes when made? And that he catches all copy-pasta vote screw ups? Remember, a vouch for Gnome is like a vouch for me!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Vouch A pillar of the wiki community. User:Nalikill00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Against - Dont get me wrong, you have made some good contributions, the fact that you used an external tool to get some of that done only diminishes that slightly, but still, i dont think we need more sysops. We have more than enough already, and promoting willy nilly is just a bad idea. Besides, you have demonstarted in at least one policy discussion as well as several vandalism discussions a chronic inability to stick to the topic, resorting to assylumish crap in them. Also, the assylum is nothing to be proud of, and should probably be speedydeleted under crits 1 and 2. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Addition - I like him, i really do, but he just isnt sysop material. He hasnt shown himself to be of the personality type to throw public support to the wind in order to do the right thing. Also, in a A/VB case this morning he didnt examine the case thoroughly before dismissing it in his eyes, nor did he follow the instructions on the page and post his comments on the talk page. Sysops need to be able to examine every situation carefully and to follow instructions and rules far more rigidly than regular users, these are not qualities i see in him. He makes a good user, but i do not believe he will make a good sysop without a radical personality shift. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I know I that I have some inability to stick to the discussion. I'm not trying to glorify the assylum stuff. I'm merely being honest about all my contributions.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    And if he hadn't said something about it, I would have. And it probably should be speedied away. Feel free if you want to Grim.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, go for it. Most of it's in my archive, at any rate. I think.--SeventythreeTalk 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. vouch a solid contributer who seems to have all the needed skills for the job and the willingness to put them to good use. --Honestmistake 00:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Vouch - Grim says we already have too many sysops, but many of those sysops are inactive and don't do anything. People who actually do stuff, and aren't dramabombs are okay in my book.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 01:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Vouch - I think you'd be an excellent sysop. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 01:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Against - Many various reasons, not the least of which are the fact that you decided to mention helping out in project newbie under the assumption that it does anything more then up your own contributions. It seems to me you don't know what a sysops needs to be able to do because of the stuff you chose to mention, see only #6 is something I see that applies to being a sysop, although the last one on the list doesn't exactly help the case. The other things come across the same way to do for all the other wiki followers, like Nalikill, who only join mass projects to get their name out there or attempt to repair a reputation they ruined elsewhere, it's like going into rehab but not meaning it and the only obvious purpose is upping your contributions for some attempt at gaining from it in the future, be it a reputation as a "helpful" user or a run at a popularity determined position(like this one it seems lately). Welcome Newbie is one of those projects, so is Locations Blocks(although some few people are actually doing that to help), the first three things on the list look like they are being used for that purpose. My big issue is you don't seem to have opinions, you don't go out there and do anything new, unique, individual, etc. Sysops requires you to take a stand on something and a relatively quite career following in other peoples footsteps leaving all the creation, decisions, and hard work about how to do something or why to do it are not things we need in Sysops. It's part of the reason I was against Mobius's bid and Swiers's bid, although the similarities of someone pushing you into the bid doesn't help. You're a quiet user with a quiet history, doesn't tell me much about how you would preform as a Sysop beyond suggesting that you will just neglect the duties inherent in the job like so many other "safe" users have and currently do. --Karekmaps?! 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    I understand where you're coming from, Karek. You pretty much hit the spot on joining all those projects just to get myself out there, that's pretty much true on Project UnWelcome, Project Welcome, Project Atmosphere (to some extent) and Project Evil. I always thought Project Wiki Patrol was appropriate mainly because I'm the type of editor that does the less than noticeable things. Really, if you do check the history of pages you will find that little "Broken link", "linking", "fixing code" etc. As with Project Mentor, I have actually mentored someone, although I have no idea where he went and I do spot newbies and help them fix their mistakes. As with UDWiki:Location Blocks, I actually thought location blocking was incredibly stupid and useless in the beginning (and I still do, a bit). Still, I decided to try and block Ruddlebank because that's my home town and I didn't like the red links. I started doing other suburbs and noticed that people were adding descriptions to the pages I created. Before long, I did 17 suburbs.

    You can't really tell how well someone will perform until they do it. With the exception of the move ability (shartak wiki) I have no knowledge any of the other sysop abilities. As for voicing my opinion, I believe you mean on policy discussions and other issues? Believe me, every single one of those I've opened up the edit window, although I don't necessarily write anything. Sometimes its because other people already voiced my opinions and I didn't feel like repeating. Other times its because drama and such is going on and I don't want to intervene with that unless I think I have something useful to help contribute positively. In short, I don't want to make drama. Is that just about everything?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Probably better said like this, we need Wiki Dragons, not Wiki Gnomes. --Karekmaps?! 23:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Vouch - As Karek. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 02:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Against - Obnoxious sig. – Nubis NWO 02:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    I assume you're with the above againsts?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    No. – Nubis NWO 03:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Ok then.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Vouch - Ahhh,Karek's "YOU MUST CAUSE DRAMA" doesn't make for a good agianst vote does it? Either way, a helpful user who doesn't stir up the drama pot willy nilly. --User:Axe27/Sig 03:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Vouch - As the other vouches, mostly AnimeSucks. --Kikashie ELT 03:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Vouch - What Grim said. Just without the "we don't need moar psyops" part.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 04:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    So you agree with what i said (A series of solid arguments why he shoulnt get the position) disagree with tghe we dont need more thing i quipped in there, and overall that leans towards vouch? Thats silly. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Against (changed) - My striken comments still stand, with one exception: his background of pissing about with administrative stuff, thus contrubuting to needless drama and wastes of time. Thus, after reading through all the comments, I have to change my vote. Ahlg is an excellent, highly contributive member of the wiki. But I do not think he is ready to become a sysop, for the numerous reasons all of which are detailed in the discussion. Several months down the road it might be a completely different story. But not at this time. --WanYao 01:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Abstain - I like Target Zombie. And the boy has some skills... I also think being a low-drama, low-profile wiki user is a GOOD thing. On the other hand, some of the against comments make sense to me. Therefore, I am taking the fence-walking option: neither supporting nor opposing the nomination. In several months, if AHLG/TZ continues to be active and contributing, etc., likely I would not hesitate to vote "Vouch". WanYao 05:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Against As Grim. Sockem 05:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Vouch - He fixes the spelling on my pages. DanceDanceRevolution 07:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Against Vouch Against Edit: Just noticed hagnat's link to where he was voting to delete parts of the wiki just for a laugh with his mates. Seems like my initial thoughts were correct. Also, during this voting period, he's continued to create more obnoxious template sigs for himself. Seems like he just can't help being flighty - definitely not someone I want to be making difficult decisions on my behalf.--Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC) - uses the word "retarded" instead of "stupid", which just bugs me, as there's a clear difference between the two. That, combined with "Assylum" and their jittery behaviour on A/VB make me think they're too childish to be a sysop, and are only in it for the prestige or to be the enforcer for a clique of ker-A-zee buddies: some of whom actively seek to test the boundaries of A/VB. That's a waste of time for everyone involved. (I don't mind the monkeys having a tea party, but arming them with stun guns and tear gas is going to far.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 08:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    This isn't a freakin' joke. This promotion bid is just about me. Not SA, not 73, not Nali and not the rest of Assylum. Do you see their names next to my bid? I surely don't. I do admit that I have bent the protocols on the A/VB page although I do find that keeping it to the talk page or not writing anything at all prevents my unintentional habit of using A/VB as a bit of a talk page. And believe me, I don't break the protocols because I think it's amusing, or I don't care, or because SA did or I feel like annoying Grimmy. The very last time I've done anything spammy to a public page was 22:29, 14 September 2007, quite some time ago. A long time to reform, I think.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    I don't really know you, but your excited reply makes me think I'm right. Oh, and yes, I do see their names next to your bid. Well, beneath it. They all say "vouch". Hey, I could be wrong, I'm just one voter. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 22:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Funt, be fair mate, credit me with some inteligence. I wouldn't let anything influence my decision or my vote exept the qualities of the candidate. And as for the exited reply? Well, you did compare him to a monkey at a tea party. just saying.--SeventythreeTalk 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    I have nothing against monkeys having a tea party! Like I said, I might be wrong - but I think a sysop needs to be a bit more level-headed. You're right, though - I know my opinions can be a bit antagonistic. It's not meant as a personal attack. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enougth then. Thanks for clarifying your position.--SeventythreeTalk 23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Hrmn...oh, well, y'know, uhm, I can admit when I've been wrong. Just takes me a while. Changed vote. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    Cool. Nice to see you back, by the way.--SeventythreeTalk 20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Against - i just don't take you or 73 serious, sorry. --~~~~ [talk] 09:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Maybe You have done a lot of stuff but what do you plan on doing with Sysop powers? - Vantar 11:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Sysopy things. I'd try to take it slow in the beginning, especially with vandal banning and such. I'd pretty much continue as I am, but with administration work mixed in as well.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    You say you want to continue doing the work you are doing know but I can not see anyway the sysop powers could help you in your current work. Because of that I would have a hard time vouching for you. Your responses to other questions and votes lead me to believe that you are looking to focus in A/VB which is a field that is mostly unrelated to the majority of you work. It might be a good idea for you to become more involved in the more political parts of the wiki (Policy work, Open Discussion, etc.) before going for Sysop. - Vantar 05:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, Karek has mentioned that I become more involved in Policy/Open discussions and I mean to improve on that. Given the abilities, I have no doubt that I'll delve more into the vandal banning department and also voting on moderation issues Edited. I think I failed to mention that I do a lot of vandalism reverting, something that can only become more useful with rollback option.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    Also, my "warnings" carry no real weight. I can tell a user to stop as many times as I like, but I have no actual way to get them to stop, either verbally or ban.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Against - Too much willy-nillying around and not much real, genuine respect for protocols. Seriously, I hate spam as much as the next person. In hindsight, me and Vista should have come down on you guys mroe harshly. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Don't dwell on my idiocracy in the past. Stop getting me mixed up with the Assylum members. I have long since stopped with the suggestion RE spam after it was clear that we and I were starting to cross the line. I don't mess with any of the administration pages, including the vandal banning page. You have to scroll down a lot to find a single edit that would be considered a comment rather than a helpful contribution. You might find more of me on the discussion page of A/VB.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Vouch - Done a lot for the wiki, and has a good sense of humour as well as a friendly way about him. --Toejam 12:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Vouch - He is currently not a sysop? The man 12:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Vouch - We need some sysops who avoid the drama train --the one, the only, sushiknight (talk contribs HARD E.N.D.) 14:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Vouch - A friendly, helpful guy with solid wiki skills who's done a lot of useful stuff around here. --Pavluk A! E! 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Vouch - You are clearly active enough and you seem level-headed enough for the job. Go for it. --Akule School's in session. 00:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Vouch- I believe that his contributions speak for themselves. -- BKM 02:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Vouch - Why doesn't an autoblock or a welcomenewbie edit count as "real contribution" when a contentless and/or unwarranted spam vote on the suggestion page does? As long as they take administrational work a lil' bit more seriously than their general editing and/or chats with friends on talk pages I'll vouch for autoblockers, and this gnome isn't the exception (he's the rule, actually). I don't bite the argument that "we have enough Sysops", because AFAIK pages like A/VB (ruled by Grim, Grim, Grim, Vista/Boxy and then more Grim) need new Sysops caring enough to take over new cases, and is here someone caring about diversity of views yet? Sysops claiming that their employement is that of "janitors" and then demanding exclusivity rights to the broom sounds like double standards to me. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    Making contentless pages that are essentially stubs add nothing to the wiki and detract from future creativity, that's part of why. And also, Vista ruled A/VB pretty much exclusively before hagnat and Grim returned, even after multiple users were promoted for similar reasons that people want Gnome, even when you were a sysop you avoided things like A/VB. Just thought I'd point that out.--Karekmaps?! 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Vouch - Not a bad user, obviously a member of the wiki, I believe his decisions would be fair. The only problem with him is his Sig, and I believe he would change that after his promotion. --Karlsbad 20:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sure I could cook something up.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Against - I'm with those above who voted against. And also due to the fact Gnome won't make a lifelong allegiance to me. And the fact my Mudkip Army can seriously whoop his Gnome Army's ass and his Gnome Army are bitter rivals... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yer evil.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    There's a first from an old member...Someone who can't get his sig right...And evil, you say? Oh...I don't know about that...(Glances at Vista) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Vouch Seems like a useful fellow. - Whitehouse 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Vouch You show good intent, and you seem to have the strive to do good things.--Fgon50 01:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Vouch Just by your mainpage, you seem very adept at writing code and whatnot. While it doesn't directly relate to the function of a sysop, I don't see how that knowledge could hurt - in fact I think it might help. As long as you resist the temptation of the Drama, then you would probably be a good pick --Ryiis 22:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Vouch – I think he can be trusted with the mop and bucket.
    And to all the people who vote "Against" based on sigs or userboxes: grow up. This isn't high school. Stop being so petty and look at the user's contributions, not their decorations! That kind of voting is out-of place everywhere except FashionWiki or UserboxWiki respectively, both of which I pray don't exist. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. It never hurts to have more sysops then actually needed. That way the wiki both has a reserve pool of sysops and it battles the perception that sysops are part an exclusive club. And while the spamming caused by assylum was annoying, it caused little to no real drama. It still counts as a bit of a black mark against him, but a two months rehabilitation period seems enough in this case. Overal his edits make me confident enough that he has the level of judgment needed to be an effective sysop.-- Vista  +1  14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm assuming vouch, so I put that in front of your vote. Correct me if I'm wrong. --User:Axe27/Sig 14:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    Actually I left it off on purpose. Vouches are only needed to move the candidacy into the discussion area and even then it isn't needed to actually write "vouch", just clear support for the candidate. After that all that matters is that boxy and me get a good sense how the community views that person so we can take that with us in our decision. Vouches and Against make it seem like an election but a single well argued comment against by a well respected user can trump hundreds of badly argued vouches for by one-off spam accounts. And vica-versa, of course. I'd rather have people focussing on the argument then the binary for/against part.-- Vista  +1  15:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    Sigh Everyone seems to be picking up on the too many cooks comment i made and ignoring the rest of what was said. Just sayin. You say you are confident he has the level of judgment required? I suggest you take a look at the expansion to my comment i made on the fifth. He is far too prone to spam and impulsiveness to be a good sysop. A fine user, sure, except for the crap about the assylum, but he lacks the patience and consideration a sysop requires, not to mention apparently being unable to follow reasonable instructions (Regarding A/VB here), which is something sysops have to do given the vast restrictions we have on our abilities. Im not saying that he couldnt do these things, im just saying he has demonstrated negligable aptitude for them at best, and to do so would be out of character for him. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    Well I think I did adress that. It's certainly a black mark. And I can certainly understand why people whould have problems with his candidacy based on that, personally I view him as a BobHammero sort of type who was actually involved in a lot serious more drama early on. That said I'm certainly not sold yet on promoting him. But I've seen nothing that would make me think he less qualified overall then the average sysop we have. However there are quite a few who think him too flighty and giving him some time to adress that before promoting him might be prudent. It's not uncommon that an user is rejected the first time round to work on some issues and later becomming a fine sysop.-- Vista  +1  14:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  35. against - one simple case: the request to delete the deletion page. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    Er, as the person who did that entire thing, Gnome had absolutely nothing to do with it. I put it up once, saw you delete it, left and came back to find that Nali had undeleted it a couple of times, you'd redeleted it and banned me and Nali. I think Gnome may have have voted on it, but he certainly did not encourage either me or Nali. --SeventythreeTalk 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    yes, he was involved. He put the deletion template on the page, or reverted the page when i removed the entire voting stuff. I dont remember what it was right now. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    Are you sure? I thought that was Nali.... Maybe you're right. Is there any way to check?--SeventythreeTalk 18:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    I once heard about some kind of tool in wikis that allow you to check the edit history of an article. But that must be lies --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    Well, yeah, I knew that existed, but I thought that it only went back for a selected number of edits. You may have noticed, but I'm not completely knowlegable on how the wiki works. I'll go check.--SeventythreeTalk 18:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    Um, I actually just voted once, and that was it.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    The edit in question. The minor one after that was a grammar fix.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    You do realise that that link merely serves to reinforce the points i have made, dont you? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    It's a vote. Regardless, Haggie or 73 would have found it anyways.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    The fact that you were involved in the case is enough for me not to vouch you. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  36. Vouch Deletions up for deletions was a joke, and a hilarious one at that. I lose a large amount of respect for anyone who views participation in a joke enough to disqualify them for sysop.--Wooty 23:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    A joke's a joke, Wooty, sure enough - but do you want someone who thinks it's funny to delete parts of the wiki for a giggle, to actually have the power to ban people and delete pages? I don't. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    It was not really a joke, it was a premeditated attempt to shit up and abuse the administrative pages. Also, Administrative pages are not the place for joke votes. A sysop has to have whats best for the wiki in mind at all times when acting on the administrative pages. A person who demonstrably votes against whats best for the wiki, attempting to justify it after the fact as some sort of joke, just isnt fit to be a sysop. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    Ten or twenty blatantly bad faith edits out of five thousand is, in my opinion, nowhere near enough to justify anything. I highly doubt that he will actually delete deletions because he joked about it. I trust gnome with sysop powers because I doubt he'll do much other than help the wiki with them, and even if he does do some crap every now and then, I think the good outweighs the bad at least a hundred to one.--Wooty 18:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, its closer to a thousand, maybe seventeen hundred edits of debatable quality from his total, and theyn you have to remove the welcomenewbie and location blocking from the total which nukes off another couple of thousand. Way too high a proportion of crap to content. Besides, thats not the point, the point is that he has clearly demonstrated in the past that he does not have the best interests of the wiki at heart, actively participating in attempts to sabotage and undermine the processes (The deletions page for deletion scandal), as well as undermining the process of reasoned discussion regarding policy and vandal banning by degenerating several discussion threads into senseless meandering spam worthy of the assylum, which is in itself up for deletion under crits 1 and 2. (Another piece of crap in which he voted against the best interests of the wiki). His personality just doesnt fit with the requirements, as i explained earlier. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 18:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    No. The point is that he used autoblockers and the welcomenewie template to, you know, actually be helpful and so he shouldn't be allowed to be a Sysop. Sysop have tried to make a point in that they're just janitors and that if the janitor screwup we have Misconduct, so let it be that way. Now you're trying to say that "there are certain underlying reasons wich can make a trusted user not fit to be a Sysop but that will not really allow for any possible Misconduct case should the user be promoted". Choose your stance already, don't be abusing both so openly, one here and the other at policy discussion. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    Whatever you are smoking matt, i hope you brought enough for everyone. I honestly cannot figure out how you managed to come up with that strawman without either cutting out a sizable portion or your brain or bathing it in narcotics. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 18:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    Janitors that make decisions about what and what isn't vandalism, shouldn't themselves be prone to bouts of pseudo-vandalism, I think is the point, Farenheit. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    Moved discussion to talkpage to try and shorten length--SeventythreeTalk 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    This edit is just to make the discussion readable without continuously scrolling down. Carry on.--Wooty 06:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  37. VouchHe's the first mod who actually caught me inside of five minutes. And for that I commend him.--Doggie 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  38. Against Reading the debate and his replies, not a solid candidate. Appreciate some of what I've seen him do on the wiki, but not real sysop material. Not a steady resume as solid wikizen, calling into question the motives for seeking the position. Probably all kids having fun, not a condemnation, but not at all an endorsement for a responsible position. --Dylan Mak Tyme 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  39. Vouch - If Gnome promises to take it slowly on A/VB. :) --Z. slay3r •  Talk  15:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Abstain - First off, I just wanted Gnome to answer without comments from anyone else, but I guess that is what I get for not stating that explicitly. Moving on, I like the work you have done, especially regarding the wikignome edits and helping out others. Nonetheless, your eagerness to mainly rule on VB cases made me lean towards "no." In my opinion, even with users who are very experienced with VB need to take it extremely slowly ruling on cases due to the many complications that can arise from disagreeing sysops and users. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  21:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes I do understand that vandal banning is a tedious thing (and the area most prone to screwups). I'm not expecting everything to be easy and straightforward in terms of vandal banning. Like I stated, taking it slow in the beginning, especially in terms of VB and deleting.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    Just a standard (yet modified and shorter) questionnaire. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  00:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • What sysop tasks do you see yourself focusing on the most?
      A: Vandal Banning as it seems like I'm fairly quick to spot them and also not jump to conclusions when I see "Removing all content from page", which could easily be the page creator equivalent of saying "delete this" (yes, when undoing I check the history to see if it's author-only). Among that, deleting, moving and protecting when applicable. I expect to take everything slow in the beginning as I've never been a sysop before and obviously not completely familiar with the abilities.
    • What would you say is(are) your most significant contribution(s) and why?
      A: Autoblocking, although it looks like a lot of people have no respect for that. Why? Well because of the sheer volume of it and how lots of people created history/descriptions to the pages that I created, making them stubless and not non-existent locations. My little "wikignome" edits and also quickly addressing questions, problems that a lot of people don't bother with.
    Please sign your posts, gnome. You dont need to be a sysop to do the latter, or even iomprove them, and the former, you say you will focus on vandal banning, the exact place where i put up an iron clad case against you. I direct your attention back to the fifth of november LINK. You failed to examine the case thoroughly which, had you been a sysop, would have led to drama as we would have needed to gather multiple sysops to overrule your ignorance in that case. Vandal banning requires a certain level of objectivity and investigative ability, both of which you sorely lack. Now, if you had said page deletions, you may have had a smidgin of a case, but on something such as A/VB? You must be fucking nuts. A sysop who wants to take part in A/VB must be capable of certain things. You dont have any of those capabilities. If thats what you want to do, change your conduct and your personality and come back in a year. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    Oops, I made a slight mistake when looking at Nali's difference and as you can see after, I noticed and accepted. If you noticed I tried sorting out what appeared to me as something that wasn't vandalism before going "lol ban the idiot kek". I'm what you call a human. Humans make mistakes unfortunately. I'm done talking to you.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    It wasnt just a mistake, it fits perfectly with everything else about your character. You are lazy. It doesnt matter if you admit the mistake, what matters is that you didnt check the patently obvious fact that he made both contributions in the diff and then check to see what was added in the first contribution. Combine this with your willingness to disrupt the adminitrative pages to make a point (Deletions for deletions support. You werent a ringleader, but you were part of the gang), as well as your demonstrated willingness to spam (Scroll to the bottom, and thats just one example) up pages. While i recognise your contributions to the wiki, you just arent fit to be a sysop, much less one that focuses on the A/VB page. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    One last thing to clarify. I don't hate you, or even dislike you. If you were to suddenly be demoted I wouldn't hesitate to vouch for you simply because you do a lot of sysopy work, regardless if people think you're an ass (or whatever). And I'm not just saying this to get on your good side. Really. There is no sarcasm there. There is no humour. Now I'm done.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  40. Why do you want to be a sysop? -Barroom Hero 05:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    Pretty much what any other candidate says: I want to help out more. Do you want me to elaborate more? I believe I've mostly covered this question somewhere here in this mess of text, talk and yelling, but I'll elaborate if you wish.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    that answer will suffice. I was hoping it would help me decide to vouch for you, it didn't... You're a good Wiki user helping when and where you can. But, my gut reaction is to say Against; I just don't trust you to do the job of sysop properly. This is based on the responses I've seen you post above, some comments you've made other places on the wiki, and your weak response to my question. --Barroom Hero 14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Sounds fine to me :). I'll still elaborate, if you want.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Who doesn't want to be a sysop?--Wooty 06:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    People who realize all it does is tack on a bunch of requirements and force you to deal with some of the most distasteful people on the wiki but not do anything about them.--Karekmaps?! 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    Was that pointed at me, or a comment in general?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    Little of both.--Karekmaps?! 02:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, are you also referring to some recent promotions?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  41. Vouch Many of the complaints above seem to stem from things he's done in the past...but I think the fact that he's owning up to those things, not trying to make excuses or such, and that he's done lots of good work makes him worthy of sysopness --Chelsea Dagger 05:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  42. Vouch Because I'm hardly ever here on the Wiki, or in the game. I completely trust the future of the Wiki to some guy who can make Grim whine and moan, because in the end... who cares if people take a big, steaming cyber rear end splatter on the Wiki. It's a Wiki. To be edited by the users, run by the users, and in the end, if wanted to, destroyed by the users. If you're worried about your MINORITY OPINION BEING SWALLOWED UP BY THE MORASS OF PEOPLE SAYING YES, SHUT THE FRUIT UP. That means that you're the minority, and you don't matter. *smile* --Sergeant Zerbrowski 00:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  43. Against - From what I've seen you do good work, however I don't think that you should be allowed to rule on the Vandalism page. It seems to me that you are unable to cut through the crap and see what you need to. - If Jedaz = 06:42, 14 November 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
    Just a note: If you think that, he CAN still be overruled by other sysops and the bureaucrats.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  16:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    Thats true, but sysops shouldn't have to constantly over-rule another sysops rulings, which is what I expect would happen more often then it should. - If Jedaz = 11:30, 21 November 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
  44. Vouch He seems like a nice helpful guy and I don't really see the point in raking him over coals for a few edits meant as a ha ha. I really wish some sysops would take a moment and look at how childish and controlling they are over a damn community resource. To me, I would much rather have a sysop who tries to help new users rather than tear their heads off and shit down their neck. That is all... carry on, har har --Jellofun 01:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    Heh, well my name does have helpful in it and I do have a developing help page.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was a long and involved read, and a hard decision to make. I have decided not to promote you this time, AHLG, but hope that you do put yourself forward again in the near future. You have always been a helpful poster, and get involved in useful projects. You were involved in the silliness that went along with the Assylum, which got a bit out of hand there for a while, when it clashed with the Admin section of the wiki. However, since the deletions up for deletion drama, you seem to have made a concious decision to take things more seriously, at least in regards to Admin, so while it was a concern, it's not a big one from my pov, in fact it shows a willingness to change you behaviour when necessary for the good of the wiki. The main concern I have is your understanding of the intracacies of the guidelines, and your willingness to really look into the history of cases on A/VB (seeing as you would no doubt be active there). As others have said, perhaps more involvement in policy discussions (we are always looking for inventive solutions to problems that come up), and going into more detail (in the form of diff comparisons and the relationship of the protagonists) on A/VB reports you make, where the case is not straight forward. It's always appreciated when we don't have to go searching through multiple page histories to find out what was going on, and to find the motivation for vandalism -- boxy • talk • 09:15 21 November 2007 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Sysop_Archives/A_Helpful_Little_Gnome/2007-11-05_Promotion&oldid=2101107"