UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Krazy Monkey/2006-08-08 Promotion

Administration » Sysop Archives » Krazy Monkey » 2006-08-08 Promotion

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

Krazy Monkey

I put my name forward about a month ago but was asked that I do more for the Wiki and try again at some point in the future. In response to this I got involved in some maintainance based projects such as the Locations Project and helping identify pages for Speedy Deletion.
In the Locations Project I did a few little bits and pieces to gain a bit of confidence at ending the larger pages and added the template to The Younghusband Arms page. My main contribution to the Project was NecroTech Buttonville. I have also made Wasteland 47,95 from scratch which conforms to the Style Guide.
I have been pretty active on the Speedy Deletions Page, nominating several pages for deletion. As usual, I have been pretty much at home on the Suggestions page making two more successful suggestions, 1 and 2. I have had a go at making templates and made 4 templates for the DEM: Template: MEMS Member, Template: MCDU Member, Template: MM Member and Template: MFU Member. I also made one for my own group Template: Random. I know that, technically, they have nothing to do with my application but I thought I'd include them anyway.
I would still like to become a Moderator as I believe that I can do much more to help out in the community as a whole.
Thanks for reading my second attempt. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 09:59, 8 August 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - Krazy is an active wiki user in good standing. He would be a welcome addition to the mod staff, IMO. --Raystanwick 12:56, 8 August 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - Has a cool head and is a voice of impartiality. Definately gets my vote. Grim44 13:15, 8 August 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - Impartial, willing to help and competent with the runnings of things around here. Definately a good addition - HerrStefantheGreat 15:32, 8 August 2006 (BST)

• Against - He has made a very poor decision regarding an arbitration case. Had he come to it any other way instead of basing it solely on guidelines that are allowed to be overruled by arbitration cases, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Basing a ruling solely on the current guidelines (which read as if someone on crack had written them) instead of supplying a logical reason why gives me the impression that Krazy is the sort who would follow the rules to their letter, and not their spirit. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:14, 8 August 2006 (BST)
  • Re - It was my first arbitration case so I decided to go by the rules rather than making them up myslef. I was operating as a neutral party as an arbitrator should and follwed the guidelines to reach my conclusion. I suggested that they keep an archvive but I will leave it up to them. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 16:45, 8 August 2006 (BST)
    • Re: That wasn't what I was getting at, and thank you for confirming my suspicion. No, I don't care that you ruled in their favour, I care that you ruled in their favour without supplying logic beyond "the rules say so", which leads me back to my parting statement: "…following them to their letter and not their spirit." –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:50, 8 August 2006 (BST)
      • Re - Ok then Mr.Xoid, how would you have done this case then if you think you have a better way of doing it. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 17:05, 8 August 2006 (BST)
        • Re: If he simply cleared the page, there would be no problem. It was the selective edits that were at the heart of the issue. My ruling, were it up to me? No archive. I bet a lot of people are shocked to read that. My reasoning: because of the fact that the reasoning being used to argue for an archive was flawed — even if Legend X could not be trusted to not selectively edit again it no longer matters. Those edits are covered under the vandal banning rules, and with this case you can be sure that the usual suspects will keep a close eye to ensure that Legend X doesn't selectively edit comments again. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 17:25, 8 August 2006 (BST)
          • Re: - Ok. Thanks for clearing that up a bit for me. In future, if I get another Arby case, I'll try and give more reasoning for my decision rather than just refering to the rules. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 17:38, 8 August 2006 (BST)

• Against - I agree with Xoid on the arbitration thing. Furthermore, I want to see more of you on the wiki. I'm not sure if you are ready for a mod status. On the other hand, you look like an impartial user and I like it.--Thari ^T/C/TJ! 17:03, 8 August 2006 (BST)
• Against - I am in full agreement with Xoid and Thari on this. I was very disappointed when I saw his recent arbitration ruling. Yes, he followed the guidelines to the letter. As usual, doing that led to a poor result, since the guidelines seem to have been written by someone with all the critical thinking skills of an inebriated sea slug. I also disagree with one of the finer points of his ruling — mandating that one user can never comment on a particular group's talk page? That's just poor judgement, and will likely be overturned if Banana Bear ever decides to violate that part. Furthermore, while I have seen him put in some effort, I haven't seen nearly enough work for me to consider him above and beyond the average user, which is what I think moderators should be. Fixing more pages, reporting vandalism, making major changes in a project, some sort of leadership position on a substantial change; these are the things I look for in prospective moderators. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 20:50, 8 August 2006 (BST)
  • Re: - I've just noticed that I banned Banana Bear from posting there forever. It was only meant to be for a month. I had the two actions in one sentence but I change them to the format they are now forgetting to put that Bear was to stop it for a month. I've ammended that but everything else stands no matter how many compliants I get. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 23:44, 8 August 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - Seems level headed and mindful of the rules. I support this promotion --Kiki Lottaboobs 22:36, 8 August 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - I've been watching his edits on the wiki and have been impressed in general. The fact that he follows the rules so diligently speaks well of him. He has my support. --Torvus 00:24, 9 August 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - He has done quite a bit on the wiki, and I think he would make a great Mod if promoted. --Mnbvcx 00:53, 9 August 2006 (BST)

• Abstain - Going through your Contributions it seems the bulk of your edits come from Suggestions and group pages. I'd personally like to see you spread out more. Recently you have been doing that but you need more experience with other things. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 01:28, 9 August 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - I whole heartedly support this promotion. He seems dedicated to doing what is best for the site and all users. A mistake or two may have been made, but he has been willing to accepted these faults and see them as learning opportunities. He has done a lot on wiki and I think he would make a top-notch Mod. --Vikermac 07:35, 9 August 2006 (BST)

• Against - --CaptainM 08:18, 9 August 2006 (BST)

• Vouch - I've seen his work. It's great. And he should get this promotion. --P4X639 15:06, 9 August 2006 (BST)

• Against - It's not that the amount of work isn't enough to qualify, but even I had a significant amount of wiki-edits that were not related to my group or suggestions pages. The issue surounding the arbitration rulings doesn't concern me as I it's an issue between three people and it's over with now. What does concern me is the number of "Old timers" who are voting against and the relative experience of those vouting "vouch". Conndraka^{mod TCFT} 19:50, 9 August 2006 (BST)

• Against - I would have to agree with quite a bit of what other people have said. By the looks of things to me most of your edits have been self-serving edits and not ones for the community. Come back when you have done more for the community and I'll happily vote vouch. - Jedaz 11:33, 10 August 2006 (BST)

• Against - Essentially all of his support is from people who don't know the wiki, essentially all his opposition is from people who do. Says it all. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 20:26, 11 August 2006 (BST)
  • Not only that, but you'll notice that almost all of his vouches are from DEM members. Hmm. Not suspicious at all. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 01:27, 12 August 2006 (BST)
    • It wouldnt matter to me if everyone who voted for any promotion was from the same group as the nominee. But IMHO those people voting for the Nominee had better be either active on the UDWiki, Another Wiki, or both. Take my promotion for example, If the entire DHPD had vouched for me that would have been in excess of 160 vouches, but honestly only 6 or 8 have either the Wiki experience or are active enough in the Wiki community to have much legitimate weight. Conndraka^{mod TCFT} 13:12, 13 August 2006 (BST)

• Against - As per Jedaz (and others also) --Brizth ^{M T} 10:55, 13 August 2006 (BST)

• Abstain - I really didn't approve of your Arbitration ruling, but I haven't seen enough of you elsewhere to be able to comment any further. Cyberbob  Talk  11:16, 13 August 2006 (BST)

  Tally - 8 Vouch, 9 Against, 1 Abstain, 18 Total--Gage • ASS 19:37, 15 August 2006 (BST)