UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Axe Hack/2011-02-03 Promotion

Administration » Sysop Archives » Axe Hack » 2011-02-03 Promotion

This page is an archive of Axe Hack'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.

Axe Hack

• Axe Hack (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | vndl data)

Since his last bid, he has strongly shaped up in the janitorial department. It's now regularly him who does the unloved task of cycling the admin pages each month. (A task that would also run much smoother if he had himself the necessary Protection buttons to deal with the scheduled stuff.)

His other big new janitorial contribution is the project Very Funny Or Not, which tackles one of the most badly neglected backwaters of the wiki and also shows his leadership ambitions.

Apart of that, he is still going strong as a community member and event organizer. Having him on the op team would be a boon, as he offers an unique perspective, while still proving that he's ready to get his hands dirty when necessary.

I strongly hope he will accept this one. -- Spiderzed▋ 04:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The first thing I wanna see on the net when I wake up and have a cup of joe nearby is not something that will make me spit out my cup of joe because it caught me slightly off guard because somebody said not to expect a nomination until the weekend. Now that my spill has been cleaned...Like the previous time, I'm going to wait a week before I decide if I wish to accept this or not. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, on second thought, I decided to go a bit earlier. There already four days between the closing times of the two latest bids. At worst, the crats need a couple of days more due to workload (which would just be the same result as holding back the bid.) -- Spiderzed▋ 15:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch. See the bid text for my reasons. -- Spiderzed▋ 04:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - I was very resolute in my stance against Axe in his last bid, but he immediately stepped up and started doing beautiful things around the wiki, and it was then I knew that he could be a good op. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Weak against - losing confidence in his decision making skills if he can't even decide about accepting bid. otherwise as boxy, regretfully enough. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  Well, if you must know, I had made a decision two days into the bid. I just don't think it's wise to jump the gun and present my decision to the community early into the bid. However, DDR (and any others who are wondering), if you really really want to know, fine. I won't leave the wiki in any more suspense. I, Axe Hack, will accept Spiderzed's nomination. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 06:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch - i've been playing with the little gook for like forever.. sure why not. anyone but thad.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 04:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Vouch - Massively active, makes good edits all around and stays perfectly neutral when necessary. If he accepts he would be a major asset to the sysop team.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Question Have you any experience of sysop/adminship on other wikis? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  There was the Dealt in Lead wiki before it went offline, and I am currently an Op on the newer Battle Row wiki. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Why ask a question you know the answer to :| -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Just because I know something, doesn't mean everyone else does as well. And I always ask questions. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  Dorothy Dixer -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:11 6 February 2011 (BST)

• Vouch Will be nice to see how his sense of humour works as sysop. --Honestmistake 15:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch Has proved competance over on the battle row wiki--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Vouch Weak, only because I don't know the candidate as well as I should... Asheets 16:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Abstain - For the same reason I abstained on Spidey's bid. Will make decision after you accept your bid. You could expect a vouch, though. ~ 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Alright I guess its been long enough now that I can cast a real vote. You still don't seem to thrilled about the idea of possibly becoming an op but I may just be reading into it wrong. Even if that is the case, I think you'll come around. I can tell you are one to really think before offering your opinions on things and I think that's a good quality. You've made lots of good contibutions to the wiki, technically savvy, show desire to improve the wiki (funny...or not project), not afraid of janitorial work. So I vouch for Axe Hack. Make this man an op. ~ 08:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - Go get 'em tiger.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Mega Vouch Unsure - You mean he wasn't a sysop already?! --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 10:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Wait, you knew you were getting nominated and now you think you can wait a week to see if you want to accept the position of being nominated?

  QUESTION: If elected, would you wait a week for every decision you make even if you knew you should probably make the decision beforehand? --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 23:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  That depends on the situation at hand. If the situation is a pretty big deal, I'll spend two days at most looking over and reviewing the facts before making my decision. If a situation is minor, I see no reason why not to prolong my decision to a week at most. Another factor would also be if there are any time limits as to when a decision needs to be made, such as this nomination. Should there be a time limit that (in my opinion) extends at least 3-4 days, I see no reason why 50%-75% of that time cannot be used to think things over carefully (as such is this nomination bid) or (looking outside of this bid) to review the facts and pin everything down to the last detail. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  Sure, why not. He was still going to get my vouch anyway. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 17:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against - wont commit to running or not... and has a mega-spammy sig that I see enough of already -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:00 5 February 2011 (BST)
• Against - Was leaning on to vouching, but his lack of decision making skills told me otherwise. Sorry Axe, but you haven't convinced me with tangling about accepting this bid yes or not, which you did even more than Spider. And I have my doubt whether this insecurity is a one-time only, I don't deem you capable yet of making important decisions, which you will have to make to as an op. You shouldn't be so afraid of a negative outcome. You know what would convince me outright? Come back in a few months (1, 2) and self-nominate.--Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  The bid's already accepted. See the response under DDR's opinion. And also, I don't believe in self-nomination. It just makes the self-nominator look...desperate-ish. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  I know that it has been accepted, I just don't agree how. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch coz AH rulez!!!!! --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 10:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Fulfills all the criteria (maybe a little discrepancy in the desire to be sysop thing, but accepting the bid signifies at least some desire, doesn't it?) -- †  talk ? f.u. 13:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Question How do you feel you have dealt with/ would deal with drama? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  I don't get involved in drama as often as some of the other folks on this wiki. I do, however, check to see what the commotion is about, and if I have any objections, I will speak up. If and when I do speak up, there's only one thing I look for. Facts. Facts are very important when it comes to voicing my opinion in any commotion, if I absolutely must get involved. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Question As the recent goatse VB case has split the team in their vote and turned quite heated, what would your ruling have been if you had been an op at that time? -- Spiderzed▋ 15:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  Umm, it was 6-3, that isn't exactly "splitting the team".--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  It's hardly unanimous dear fellow. (Twirls Moustache). --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  Personally, I disagree with the verdict completely. I mean, Wikipedia has their fair share of pornographic images. In fact, in the case of Mark D. Stroyer vs Gage, Gage himself has even listed a few Wikipedia links that contained sexual contents. Hell, if we look at Michelangelo's infamous "David", it even has sexual content, especially since there are replicas of it in public places. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  What wiki are we on again????? I seem to have forgotten, I don't see Jimmy Wales' face on the top of the page so I don't think it's wikipedia.... -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  He wasn't claiming we're wikipedia, but they're often cited as a prime example of a 'benevolent' or 'good taste' website, much like BBC or the like, with a strong concern for not pushing the envelope. It's more of a "it's okay for them and we're less refined than that" argument than a "their rules are our rules" one. 00:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  No, it's more of a "wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and therefore, from time to time, is required to document things which may push the envelope of what is considered the day-to-day basis of reasonable, unlike Urban Dead, the wiki based on a text based zombie game and therefore has very, very little obligation towards sexual content, if at all." Now I may be a little weird, but does likening goatse to the statue of david to prove a point in an argument seem fucking retarded to you? Could there be a more stupid and unworkable point one could use? The intent, context, reception and usage are all ENTIRELY different. Speaking of stupid points, if you'd want to use wikipedia in the recent goatse argument, the logical thing to do would be to look at the goatse article on wikipedia, since Axe is so fond of comparisons. Do they have an article on goatse? Of course. Is the image purposefully omitted from the article? Yes. Wikipedia has an NPOV article on goatse, and still won't show the image. So, in contrast, on the topic of good taste and using Wikipedia as an example, should we allow someone to put an (for all intents and purposes) image of goatse on their userpage just to shock?

  Apologies as I never intended to make such a big rant and the actual drama of the recent A/VB case more or less flew over my head as I didn't involve myself in the discussions outside the odd comment and a ruling. But the thought of an actual sysop ruling this way with this reasoning just baffles me. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  I wasn't using that reasoning when I ruled, I just felt you took Hack to task for what seemed like a misinterpretation of his remarks, and that it would unduly affect his bid as a result - no one wants to be denied something because they're misunderstood. I still have confidence that Axe would be able to back up any actual ruling he would be asked to make, or wouldn't make one in the first place if he felt he couldn't. 01:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Ok. When I said 'an actual sysop ruling' I meant the hypothetical of Axe being a sysop in that case and ruling with his above ruling, and I also don't really use my opinion too much in bids, dw. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Big ol' vouch - The Hack is about the most harmless nice guy the community knows. Maybe a bit overeager in his friendliness (WNing adbots springs to mind), but nothing the guy does is ever meant to be anything less than happy-go-lucky and welcoming. Given the fair share of bastards with access to the buttons (I'm looking at you, Mis), we could do with a friendlier face on the team. On a technical side, the "Unfunny" project is actually one of the wiki's more well thought-out janitorial projects, and I have great respect for his ability to bring a democratic approach to things. 17:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ross and I had little trouble deciding to promote Axe Hack. It's unusual and interesting to see such an old user stand by us most of this time and eventually get promoted. We've promoted you just now. Good work Axe, keep up the solid stuff. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)