UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Peralta/2012-11-19 Promotion

Administration » Sysop Archives » Peralta » 2012-11-19 Promotion

This page is an archive of Peralta's Promotions candidacy, which was withdrawn.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

19 November 2012

• Peralta (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | vndl data)

I'm going to keep this as short as possible, since I'm sure that a drawn out explanation won't gain anyone anything: I've been on the wiki since July of this year, and have made just under 2.000 edits to it. I pride myself in the Danger Center, which I started and against all odds and predictions in (and with a ton of community effort), we finished, as well as my list of locations I unstubbed, try to keep interesting and as well maintained as possible. The main reason I want to be a sysop is to be able to react immediately to spambots and vandals, rather than being limited to reverting their actions and seeing them do it all over again. ...and again. ...and again.

Thank you for your time and consideration.PB&J 21:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It would help your bid if it had a proper section title and {{bid|John Doe}} template. -- Spiderzed█ 21:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of its existence, since it isn't specified anywhere on the page (incl. the Example User), but thanks for telling me PB&J 21:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Added, since that was a good point. —Aichon— 22:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again: thank you. I was under the impression Spiderzed added it, apologies for not giving away enough thanks to this team effort PB&J 22:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Against - You failed to do the basic janitorial work associated with promotion bids (section title, bid template and news update), which while not critical still doesn't reflect well on your knowledge and familiarity with wiki procedure. You are also a rare sight on the opinion pages (i.e. Vandal Banning and Misconduct), although there hasn't been going on much in the last few months. On the plus side, your danger map project shows a good knowledge of wiki coding and a willingness to lead projects. I'm certain you could get to the point of sys-opping within few months, but I don't see you quite there yet. Stick around, stick around more on the opinion pages, and I am certain it will get you somewhere. -- Spiderzed█ 22:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  I looked at the instructions above before adding my promotion bid, and while I forgot to add a section title, I'd like to point out it says nowhere that I should add a bid template or adjust the news page. There was 1 Misconduct case since I've been here (yours), and while I kept an eye on how it evolved, I simply didn't feel the urge to step in at any point: it was a pretty clear case and all I could have said had been said already. I'll try and keep an eye on the page and speak out in the future. I was involved in reverting poopman9's vandalizing of several pages, and discussion wasn't really necessary after such marvellous contributions as this one or this Terminator sequel. Anyway, you're right when you say I should be more involved in the opinion pages, but I do know what's going on in general. Thanks for the feedback! PB&J 22:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  It's true that opinion pages are going very slowly currently, but it makes it all the more important that you jump on any good case that pops up there while there is one. The one sys-op power users are most wary of is the ability to escalate and ban users. So it is expected that you show that you can come up with reasonable rulings that serve the situation, the rules and the wiki well. (Ironically, ruling on the opinion pages is also one of the least used and least important things an active sys-op does in practice.) - As for the instructions, it would have helped to look up any of the recent A/PM bids, and see how they were set up. The same thing is key to many other things. While you wait for your next bid, have a good look around the admin archives, and take note of key decisions and decisions on recurring situations (A/VB: impersonation, A/M: misapplied bans by sys-ops, A/MR: what to do if someone creates a character page in main space etc.). While having precedent at your fingertips isn't critical, it is something that will help you to leave a good impression as a sys-op candidate. -- Spiderzed█ 18:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I looked at this one, which is the most recent and one I gave my opinion in, and while I admit forgetting the header was a mistake, I don't see a bid template anywhere there... PB&J 19:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Oh dear. Next time look at a few promotion archive pages, not just a joke one! A ZOMBIE ANT 23:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Against for now. You got promise but it's a bit too soon. Give it till January and if everything is still good, I'll vote yes. Although I do have some concern that PK is attempting to take control of the wiki. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 22:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  Anything in particular I should keep an eye on or is it just a time limit? Not sure about PK taking over, but just in case it happens: I'll try to kill you last when we conquer the rest of the world. PB&J 22:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  I think you are doing fine now, just want to make sure you don't burn out. For some reason, I'm just stuck on the about 6 months time period. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough. PB&J 22:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  I feel compelled to point out that, contrary to popular belief, the Philosophe Knights are not a form of shadow government controlling the puppet strings for the entire meta-game. You can rest assured in the fact that our comprising half of the active sysop team despite having relatively few members was not accomplished for the purpose of fulfilling any ulterior motives or shady plans, but was rather instrumented for your benefit and well-being. I assure you, we have no designs to continue holding sway over the activities of everyone here, nor are we pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. —Aichon— 23:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  LIES! What's next? Are you getting to get the puppet master himself to tell me everything is okay? -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  “A single lie destroys a whole reputation for integrity” Baltasar Gracian PB&J 23:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  Everything is fine. Nothing is broken. (This is real.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  There he is. :P -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 12:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I recant my previous objection. After consultation with my wikilawyer, I'm going with Vouch. Since most of the arguments against would result in many of current sysops being removed, I see no reason to hold new ones to a higher standard. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  While I'm grateful for your Vouch, and while it isn't a very smart move to debate against my own cause, I do believe ever aiming higher is the best way to achieve real progress. Since you have vouched, I feel compelled to actually achieve whatever is necessary to meet your higher standards. ;) PB&J 23:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps, that came off wrong. The current sysop team seems to be working just fine now. Rather than a specific "what would you do" question or ask why you need buttons, seems silly. Personally, I question the ability of the majority of the sysops to follow their own policies (or justify why they do what they do other than pointing to that someone else has done it before), which Vapor pointed out that some precedents don't match their associated policies. So I don't find any real validity to the "is this vandalism" route. As for needing the buttons, I suspect there are precious few recent examples of sysops needing the buttons for anything other than news updates or bot banning (sidebar and ???). So, I can't see why you should be held to some made-up standard of why you want to be a sysop. If any of the current sysops would like to point to their record of never miss calling vandalism or a recent need of the buttons other than for bots (or working on their personal wiki pages), I'd be happy to hear it. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  I never tried to argue against him on the basis that he had no reason to use the buttons (and I'm the only one bringing up the buttons, so I figure you have to be talking about me). All I was doing was making a quick point: we rarely need to actually use the buttons (which you seem to agree with), so arguments for promotion based on the idea that having the buttons will let a person do more, which is what he had argued, tend to be faulty ones. That said, even if that one argument doesn't have much substance, there are plenty of other reasons to consider promoting the guy. :P —Aichon— 00:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  Are you sure this isn't an argument for impeaching several current sysops? ;) Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 03:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  hello there. A ZOMBIE ANT 13:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question How large can an image be when used in a user's signature? ~ _{00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)}

  Answer: 50kb PB&J 08:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Correct.Question 2 - How did it make you feel looking up that mundane piece of info. Is that the sort of thing you'd enjoy doing often? ~ _{15:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)}

  Answer: I'm used to navigating the Wiki Help pages, since I'd rather be correct and 5 seconds slower than messing up nice pagedesign (not that it never happens) or messing up my signature. PB&J 19:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm. I'm not sure there is a good correlation between looking up things on Wiki Help and knowing policy. There are a lot of nuiances in policy and sometimes it is not straight forward. And much of it involves unwritten policy. There are case precedents and which even seem to go against wiki policies. I guess the point is, are you person who is willing to jump into WIKI LAW. All it would take is another March of the Dead or Nazi Zombies (or both if you're unlucky) and it would be upon you. I'd like to know if you'd be a Boxy, or would you be just another Shortround. ~ _{18:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)}

  Whenever I'm unsure, I prefer asking people with a bit more history in the business about advice, rather than taking rash actions. I think a lot of people around here can tell you I'm quite open to feedback on most fronts (barring my sense of fashion, which is impeccable!). I'm more than willing to learn anything that would be tied to any function I take upon myself, so that's a yes concerning WIKI LAW. PB&J 18:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  I always ride into battle against the dead in my MINI VAN--Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 18:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  Against. It was the stubs project and the cades project that did it for me. Those are pretty admirable projects (if maybe a bit lofty) but your request for feedback from multiple users had a certain air of showboating about it. And I also get the sense here with your bid that this is more about an achievement you seek. There is no glory in being a sysop. No entitlement. No badge. Its loathesome, thankless bitchwork that comes with quite a bit of hate from a fairly large cross-section of the UD community. That isn't to say that people can't thrive as a sysop. There is a certain persona that fits quite nicely into the role. People being round pegs filling round holes in the wiki. I just don't see that in you, I'm afraid. You're being a square peg. Perhaps you can be humbled enough to fit the persona one day. In the meantime, enjoy the game. There are plenty of other ways to climb ranks and earn respect from your peers. Keep up with your wiki projects and be proud of them. Keep trying new play styles and above all...have fun. ~ _{18:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)}

  I'm not looking for ranks or "achievements", and while I know I can be quite annoying when I do ambitious projects, when I ask feedback, it's as much to showboat as it is to look for reassurance that I'm doing it right and doing something worth doing. I'm well aware the words Thank you, sysop are rarely uttered, while taking verbal potshots at them seems to be common practice now and then. As I stated in my application, I was mainly tired of not being able to block spambots. There is no glory in being a sysop, it just comes in handy when doing extensive projects and when maintaining the wiki. PB&J 21:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  Have changed my mind. But I had to bust your balls a bit, first. You're alright, Johnny Twotoes. Kind of remind me of me back before I became a sysop. You'd be fine as a sop and would bring something different to the team so why not. So if you really want to do this, you got my vouch. ~ _{01:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)}

• Weak Against - Now I don't want to seem like I'm putting down the recent effort you've spent in helping make this wiki better- because I know it's been a lot, and I think that's excellent and I in particular have been very appreciative. However, I think you need just a bit more time becoming acquainted with the tools and responsibilities of sysops on udwiki (like what spiderzed said). I too live in a dream world where we could be sysops for the primary reasons of killing bots, but it isn't so, and there's a much wider picture associated with being an op that a candidate has to be well versed in. In time I'd love for you to get the buttons. However, I think it could be in a couple of months. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Question I'm massively drunk, as it's my birthday and I accidentally wandered into a singles night at my local pub. What's the best way to curb my power? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 00:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Answer: Why curb it? I'd sit back, see how it plays out and if things get out of hand, I'd gently escort you home (before dropping in the front yard, but after making sure nobody at the previously mentioned pub is filing for a restraining order or worse). Sounds like a fun night out for a birthday. PB&J 08:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Question Do you feel the wiki currently has a) too little, b) too much, or c) just the right amount of drama? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I believe wiki drama to be a neverending story, which means it's basicly a gonimetric function, with ups and downs. As such, I think there isn't an "ideal" amount of drama present at any time. There may be surges (and purges) of drama once in a while, but in the end, the drama will always balance out and keep this wiki a place for people, not machines. PB&J 08:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Vouch. I feel that you have the skills and drive necessary for the job, and your extensive wiki work means you've earned my trust. Thanks for your answer! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for your trust, and also for your massive amount of status updates on the wiki, they keep it all a bit more alive. PB&J 21:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Question - What is the extraphysical meaning of this wiki? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  A way to expand on what is otherwise an incredibly simplistic game. The wiki serves as social meeting place, but also as a center of culture: one of the only reasons UD is still alive is the fact that we, the players, are empowered to give meaning to events, locations and other people. While this sounds simple, it's quite unique. PB&J 08:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• MEGAVOUCH - You deserve the buttons just as much as Boxy--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 06:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you for your confidence! PB&J 08:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• against too soon. while I like you personally. i agree with spidey. stick around try again next year and I think you are a sure in.--User:Sexualharrison08:38, 20 November 2012

  I understand, and I suggest the 2 month limit to be adjusted to avoid future cases like mine. PB&J 08:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Against Your account name is Peralta, you use Johnny Twotoes as an alias while using "TR" as a signature. Come back when you made up your mind on this. Also as everyone else. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Mistergame, you're brilliant. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 15:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Right back at you for the wiki account name. Johnny Twotoes is my ingame name (and I used it for a long time on the wiki as well), TR is my PK handle (Twotoes reborn). PB&J 19:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  The irony was not lost on me, but seriously, I have used the same name for years consistently, it's not even remotely comparable. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  Gotta start it at one point ;) A ZOMBIE ANT 11:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  OK, but which one is it then? Question: What should I call you? Pick one. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  If you absolutely want one, go for TR. I really don't care what people call me, as long as it's respectfull and I know they're talking to or about me. I'll listen to "Johnny", "Twotoes", "the guy who started the whole map project", "one of the guys who started the 5th of November slaughter", "that guy with two toes" or whatever you can come up with, point is I'm always the same guy. PB&J 18:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Vouch - Smash the system. While I understand the idea that the perfect candidate has experience in AVB/AM/AA as well as janitorial bitchwork, the reality is that drama today is not what it was three years ago, so why even use those as "benchmarks." Sysops today seem to spend most --- if not all --- of their time on beating down bots and deletion/movement requests, which are things that he seems to be familiar with. When I look at Peralta, I see someone who learns quickly, understands both the potential and everyday use of the wiki, and actually seems to have a genuine interest in maintaining/supporting it. I think the concept of "on-the-job" training applies here, so why not 1)Introduce some flesh blood into the ranks 2)Have Peralta essentially learn about other sysop duties that are, frankly, seldom used while he can actively help by smashing down bots now (which is needed) 3)Reevaluate how he does in six months. Either he learns and you have a new, experienced sysop or he screws it up and is kicked to the curb and you are in the same position that you are now. Not a lot risk here. -MHSstaff 23:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Question - Should I be warned for this edit? Gordon 11:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  Yes. WARNED. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  Weak Against I asked this question in order to see how you would respond to the sort of ambiguous case that sometimes comes to vandal banning and misconduct. The ability to put forward a reasonable opinion on contentious cases is one of the most important attributes a sysop can have. Without knowing how you would react in such cases I reluctantly cannot vouch. Gordon 12:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  In his defense, you chose a pretty left-field method of finding out what you wanted. I imagine, like myself, he thought you were just trying to take the piss... A ZOMBIE ANT 13:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  Like DDR said: that was a pretty vague question and I wasn't sure you were serious. PB&J 13:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  So, what's your answer? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  No: while it was a vague question, it was properly posted and signed, no harmful content, just mildly confusing. PB&J 14:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  Have you checked the edit history on it? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 14:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry for the late response (RL has been busy, happens once in a while): yes I did. PB&J 18:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  Can you therefore describe the edit and your reasons for deeming it not vandalism? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 18:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  As an addendum to Ross's question, if it is not vandalism, should Rev have been taken to misconduct for his edits here and to my talk page? Gordon 19:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  The edit was a singular one, with correct indentation and signed. None of it was harmful, vandalism or against the rules, and while vague, it can be considered as an actual question. If the general consensus is that the user shouldn't be warned, Rev should have been taken to misconduct for his edit on your user page (since dealing out warnings is a sysop specific ability and thus subject to the guidelines of misconduct). The edit here could be dismissed as just some fooling around and since it doesn't count as an official warning (AFAIK).PB&J 23:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  What if it hadn't been properly signed or indented?

  Did you really check the edit history? ~ _{00:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)}

• Although Danger centre was a wonderful project, I'd like to see a bit more general admin stuff and some longevity before you were promoted. Last thing we want is sysops who just do stuff for a few months and then completely vanish.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 14:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  Uh huh... Gordon 15:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  I love it when people can poke fun at themselves like this. <3 —Aichon— 19:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  lold A ZOMBIE ANT 23:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Question: following up on what you just said to Vapor, how is the position of sysop handy when doing "extensive projects"? I've never quite understood that argument, so I'd be interested in what sorts of projects you have in mind or how you imagine the buttons will be able to help you with your current projects. At least for me, I can only think of one personal project in my entire time here where being a sysop made it a lot easier for me. —Aichon— 03:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  destroying bitz!?!--User:Sexualharrison05:12, 25 November 2012

  Hunting them is a personal project, but destroying them is just a shared administrative obligation, and one we seem to have under control at the moment. Something like redesigning a set of pages or creating a new system for getting things done around here would be a personal project. The administrative obligations will get done by a sysop regardless, and we already know what they are anyway. —Aichon— 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  Quite simple: you can move, rename or delete pages, something that would have helped both me and Charles quite a bit with the map. I'm aware you can just ask, but when you do it in large amounts at once, it can take a while. PB&J 12:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  While it's true that we can do those things, how specifically would those abilities have helped? From what I saw, you guys didn't need sysop help for that project at all, since you completed it without a single A/D, A/SD, A/MR, or A/PT request. And in thinking back, nothing immediately comes to mind that would have been easier for you guys if you had been a sysop. I actually am very curious, so if there is something specific you can think of, awesome, but if not, just be careful with making generalizations that can't be backed up with examples or evidence, since those will get you into trouble on rulings. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I did want to make that point, as well as to highlight the fact that you're a shining example of what any user can do on the wiki, regardless of having the buttons or not. People shouldn't be using the lack of buttons as an excuse for not doing things, and you've shown that it's very possible to do a whole hell of a lot without them. I hope more people around here follow the example you're setting. :) —Aichon— 23:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not taking offense, it'd be rather worrying if you just vouch or go for against without any indepth questions ;) Anyway, I'm pretty sure this part would have been easier. Those are the try-outs for the map, before we moved it to the public space. I haven't gotten around to cleaning or archiving them, or putting them up for deletion, so I'm afraid that's the best way to show it. PB&J 01:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Question what do you think of my cookies?--User:Sexualharrison20:46, 25 November 2012

  I think a promotion bid isn't the right place to ask for feedback ;) PB&J 01:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Don't give a shit - What do you want to be part of that circle jerk for anyway? You nutz? Some of these goofs couldn't tie their shoes in the morning without tripping over their own feet. Look at them all yapping like it's important stuff here. I'm not even sure 3/4 of these people even play the game anymore, yet they linger on in the wiki like it's some kind of UD afterlife. You a masochist or something Two Toes? Just keep walking man. Just keep walking. --Hibernaculum 17:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my bid.

1. RL is interfering.
2. I'm getting loads of unexpected and mostly unnecessary flak for this whole thing: it's a game.
3. I understand you shouldn't give the buttons to just anyone, but half of the above crap could have been cut, the only reason the entire page is full is because half of you apparently have way too much time.
4. Hint 1; in stead of being incredibly vague, point mistakes or stuff out. It might just help keep people active here.
5. Hint 2; most of the wiki policies aren't only vague, they're also based on and burried in a thousand archives of "precedents" of the past half decade. This isn't only a great way to keep new people at a safe distance, it's also a waste of time for anyone involved.

PB&J 19:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Just checking whether you're sure about the withdrawal? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 19:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Real sure. I put it up because I thought it would enable me to help the wiki faster and better. I didn't think it came with this amount of crap, for lack of a better word. PB&J 20:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha, indeed. Sometimes the level of retardedness here is unparalleled. For all those interested, I'll be posting my feedback on the aborted bid anyway as I think it's a useful exercise. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you're withdrawing, since I do believe that you will be a valuable addition to the team. I have a few quick notes, before Ross adds his own at some point.

The Good:

1. I loved that you just continued plugging away, showing people what you were about, and bringing people around to your side, rather than reacting negatively to opposition (at least for the most part). You showed an earnest desire to continue doing the good work you have been doing all along and displayed a knack for turning people who had voiced opposition to your side. You didn't make promises you couldn't keep, you listened carefully, you responded well, and you demonstrated who you were through action. Those are all valuable traits.
2. At least for my part, I think you're still new and have quite a few rough edges, but I would have preferred we promote you now and round those edges off in active service, rather than waiting. Of course, I'd have to consider everyone's opinions on the matter, but that's my personal one.

The Bad:

1. I thought the line of questioning that seemed to bother you most was a valid one, since it's an accurate representation of the exact sort of decision making people were concerned with you making, given that you're untested in it. That you chose incorrectly was not good, of course, but as I said, I think those are rough edges we can knock out in active duty. You're sensible enough to recognize when you're wrong and humble enough to amend your statements accordingly.
2. I thought you showed poor form in your withdrawal, not because you made it, but rather in the manner in which you made it. While you had plenty of reason to be upset and frustrated, that you demonstrated them so clearly concerns me a bit, since keeping composure while in the midst of drama is pretty much necessary with sysopping.

The Ugly:

1. Though I thought the line of questioning was valid, I didn't like the way it was handled as it went along. TR is correct in saying that it was too vague, and once we saw he didn't get it, we should have done a better job pointing him to the issue. I'll readily admit that I missed the relevant portion of the edit the first time I glanced at it, so I can see why he did as well, but sysopping is more about deciding and less about playing Where's Waldo with edits. Had it been an actual case, the issue would have been pointed to.
2. I think the recent trend of asking a lot of questions (a trend which I've helped to fuel, I'll admit) has gotten a bit out of hand. If your mind is already made up, say so, rather than leading the candidate on. If you're truly on the fence, ask a question. Of course, it may be the case that there really were a number of people on the fence here, since TR seems to be a topic the community is currently undecided on.

• I think that's actually why there was so much conversation here: unlike bids where we pretty much already know the person will pass or fail, yours was up in the air, meaning a lot more discussion was necessary. And, in looking through them, a good chunk of them were actually productive in helping people to understand you better.

So, long story short, I do hope you'll consider it again sometime in the new year. I think you're already ready, despite the rough edges. To quote a previous sysop, "Basic understanding [of how things work around here] never stopped the rest of us!" (though you may not want to follow the example he set when he nuked half the admin pages just to say goodbye to the job :P ). And as a reminder to everyone else, we all start with rough edges. It's how you work with them that will matter in the end, and TR seems to be handling them correctly. —Aichon— 03:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

While JT's reaction in his withdrawal is somewhat disheartening it only mirrors the behaviour people had towards his bid. I honestly don't think I've ever seen someone treated so badly on A/PM since it started, and especially since he was a very probably future candidate, I find it a fairly upsetting. Congratulations UDWiki. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This should be removed from the main page now. →Son of Sin← 05:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 06:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A Fistful of feedback.

So, here's the deal. My initial position on seeing the bid was that I would be for promotion. Strangely enough it usually is, (Barring the odd Xela bid), and as so I was quite looking forward to cycling this as successful.

But things got off to a bad start, with the initial formatting (which I cared little about) and the fact you seemingly only looked at one prior promotion. (Which I found troubling).

There are some areas of criticism I think are just plain wrong. I don't feel that asking other users for feedback on projects is showboating, I think it's an important skill that more sysops should use. (More on this later).

Also, you dealt with several spam questions, (including my own) with verve and pluck. More than anything I think this shows your moving in the right direction. So much of the role is putting up with lunatics bending the rules to their own end, that it's important to be able to brush things off, rather than going thermonuclear.

Which leads me on to the strangely central part of the bid - The Gordon edit question. Being the devious bastard I am, I immediately flicked over to the edit history, and saw the double edit. It's a ridiculously sneaky trick. (The answer IMO is no, assume good faith, can easily be called a positive edit, etc.)

Here's where it all went a bit weird. You didn't see the edit. Fair enough. Several people, including myself asked you to look again. You didn't see anything wrong. Fair enough. What it showed was your inexperience. Fair enough.

But here's the problem, and this is the only reason I would have been against the promotion. Remember how above I praised you for gaining feedback, passing projects around for alternative opinions, or just asking questions on talk pages? In this instance you did none of those things. Indeed, the only time you asked anyone to point out the error was after you had withdrawn your bid. I would have certainly explained it, as no doubt would DDR and Aichon, amongst others. This is the point of the job. None of us know all the answers, but we all know someone who does.

There is always the danger with the newer members of the UDWiki world when they run. Not everyone knows you, and so the questioning is more important, as it helps us flesh out a better picture of who you will be. Was it a harsh ride? Yep. Is that a bad thing? No. This job is a lot easier than it was two years ago. You've come here stating you want to be able to ban spambots, and indeed that is now what the majority of the role is, but every now and then it's a ridiculous serpent of drama, shouted precedent and coups. Like this bid, you need to look past the drama and realise that you do make excellent contributions, you add value to the wiki, and sometimes we're all insult.

Or in short, this was a bid that may have well been cycled as successful, keep on asking for help and explanations, have a read back through the promotion and administrative archives and throw up another bid in the new year. You've improved this wiki for all players and I'd hate to see you go.

When's my seat open again? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 12:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Too soon. And my thoughts mirror yours as well. —Aichon— 15:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Every Which Way But Cooth

I feel compelled to post here as well. I have to admit, I was on the fence. Partly due to its suddeness and partly due to your relative newness. I had not seen much from you in drama areas, but there hasn't been much of that so I can't really hold that against you. That's what led me to my line of questioning. I wanted to know how you fealt about wiki lawyering. I still don't think you truly understand what that means but in all honesty, none of us did before we bid for sysop. I don't think anyone would do it if they really knew.

You answered those questions satisfactorily, IMO but then there was those other two projects. It wasn't those alone, but rather the whole picture which drifted me into an against opinion. I had started to form an opinion of you a little while back because of the map project with it's custom title and your reluctance to move it from your namespace (at first), then the 5th of November event, then your sudden change in play style. If you add this bid on top of all that, plus the feedback requests you had posted on a bunch of people's talk pages, maybe you an see where my thoughts were headed. It wasn't the cade and stub projects alone, it was a much broader picture shaping my opinion.

Of course, in the end, I decided none of that really mattered much and wouldn't stop you from being a good sop. I still think you'd be good. If its something you'd like to do, well then who am I to stand in your way. If you decide to run again, you'll have my vouch again. ~ _{16:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)}

I'm sorry but this is nearly vandalism. The one with the orangutan, really? --_K 17:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Second highest grossing film of '78. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 17:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I kinda thought "For a few comments more" would have finished off the trilogy. --_K 17:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was the fourth highest grossing movie in '78, behind Grease, Superman and Animal House. Ironically, it grossed right in between Dawn of the Dead and Star Wars: Episode IV. <.< ~ _{18:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)}

You're quoting U.S. numbers, not global numbers, near as I can tell. That said, I can't seem to find global numbers for 1978. —Aichon— 19:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

shut up--User:Sexualharrison22:49, 3 December 2012

Can you all please stop your self-gratifying spooging over this already embarrassing event, he's already walked out the door. Please keep what little dignity UDWiki has left and just let this die as quick as possible. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yer ma. 04:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)