UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Vapor/2011-01-05 Promotion

Administration » Sysop Archives » Vapor » 2011-01-05 Promotion

This page is an archive of Vapor'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.

Vapor

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

Proficient, prolific, and probably not secretly a rapist. You knows he knows what he's doing, and I'd like to see him given the keys that he's suited for (acception willing of course). 23:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Misanthropy asked a few months ago if I wanted a promotion to sop status. At that time I told him I didn't think I was ready. Honestly I wasn't. I toyed with the idea, tried to decide if it was something I really wanted to do. I delved into wiki policy, admin pages, open discussion and tried to improve my overall contributions to the community.

He asked again today if I was ready. The truthful answer: not completely. But if anyone waited until they were completely ready for something, they would likely not do anything new. So I told Misanthropy that I would accept. And I hope that you the community will do the same.

You can expect that I will continue to contribute more or less the same as I have throughout my time here so far. In addition, I will take on other admin tasks. You can also expect that I will weigh in on issues more often, staying fair and just in my decisions.

I know that I am a newcomer in the eyes of many. I hope that you can see past my short tenure on the wiki and let me show you that I can overcome that fault (if it can be called that). Please feel free to ask questions and I'll answer honestly. ~ 00:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Question any previous sop experience? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  Re: - No, I do not have prior sop experience. I'm actually fairly new to this wiki. ~ 00:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, I just realized the retardedness of my answer. You already know that I'm fairly new to this wiki. What I meant to say was that I am fairly new to wikis in general. ~ 00:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Question - Can you list your "qualifications" as it were?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  Re: - I've spent the last several months reviewing policy. Getting to know the wiki, the users, and the sysop team. As far as personal qualification, I'm a Database admin for the company I work for, so at least my boss thinks I can be trusted not to fuck stuff up. ~ 00:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  I've looked at your admin page contributions, and, in all honesty, I think you should wait a bit longer. Just last month you mistakenly ruled on VB cases despite the fact that you're a normal user, and today you accidentally WNed a vandal. I think you need a little more time to grow before you have a sysop position, particularly in the drama areas where you have little experience.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Against --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough. BTW Lady Kikyou wasn't a vandal candidate until after I WN'd her. In fact, I was the one that pointed out that it was likely Izumi's vandal alt. I'm likely going to pull back on WNing a bit, though. ~ 18:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  She was a vandal the second her account was made, because she was avoiding a ban.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  But without checkuser, he had no way of knowing it was her, so you can't blame him for WNing a then-unknown alt of a permabanned user. That'd be holding him responsible for information that he couldn't possibly have, which is entirely unfair. —Aichon— 18:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Although he was perfectly able to comprehend that somebody with a similar name and similar MO made at the same time as a recurring vandal would be that vandal just shortly later.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Correct, which is why he brought it to the sysop's attention immediately afterwards. I fail to see how he acted in the wrong in any way in that situation. —Aichon— 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  It was the fact that she posted on my talk right after I WN'd her that I was able to make the connection, honestly. Still, it was a learning experience. If you want to hold it against me, its understandable. Like I said I'm going to hold back on WNing for now. It really is kind of impersonal. I'd rather help people when help is requested or when I see that it is needed. ~ 18:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, and as I said, when it's obvious that you've grown out of this and you are ready, then I'll happily vouch you.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Q - If you do obtain the status of SysOps, what do you see yourself doing that will/will not benefit the community? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  Re: - I think Admin pages could be cycled more often. It's a rather gnomish job but I'm kind of into that. I'll also weigh in more on issues affecting policy. I will definitely express my opinions more often. ~ 00:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  But (as you have probably seen me do for the past few months) you can cycle the Admin pages without the need for a promotion of SysOps. Also, you can already voice your opinions without the need for SysOps powers. So why do you need SysOps powers if what all you're going to do can already be done as a regular user? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  I won't be just cycling admin pages, that was just one thing that came to mind since it had been brought up when I first considered the position. I'll take on all the regular tasks of admin. There are fewer now and I know you guys could use the help. I'm not planning on re-inventing the wheel, just be more helpful and weigh in more on issues. ~ 00:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  I'm abstaining. I'm sure you would make a good Op, but I'm not quite sure you're ready for it just yet. As Thad, you do have a tendency to comment on A/VB cases you're not involved in instead of using the talk page to voice your opinions. And my above comment, if you are only going to deal with janitorial tasks, that you can already do as a regular user. And also as Link. You don't have a total understanding of every rule just yet. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough. As I said in when I accepted the nomination, I know I'm not completely prepared. I doubt I will ever be completely prepared. I can become more prepared if that's what is needed, though. ~ 18:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Umm...*head scratch*...he doesn't comment on A/VB cases like you say he does. Just look through his contribs. He's only made three edits to A/VB. Of them, one was to undo part of Zombieman 11's first vandalism spree, while the other two were those mistaken back-to-back votes that he made. Otherwise, he's confined everything he's said to the talk page (which is better than I've done in the same period of time). As for the other points, I disagree, especially so since demanding total understanding is a bar that no one can meet, but that's just opinion. —Aichon— 18:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch - Vapor might be relatively new, but I see him actively gnomeing, performing janitorial tasks and voicing his opinion on the recent policy discussions. I think he'd do a decent enough job as a sysop to grant him the chance to try his hands at it. -- Spiderzed▋ 00:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - I'm tempted to say "Who?" just to bug him, but I won't. Vapor, honestly, reminds me a lot of myself in terms of how I see him sysopping around here. He's technically competent, seems rational, is learning quickly, and has slowly been expanding the areas that he's helping with. He may be new, but I have little doubt that he'd be a good fit for the team. —Aichon— 01:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - Model user and will probably be a model sysop. -MHSstaff 03:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - I have no reason to doubt his 'sopping credentials. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 09:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Against - He's a great janitor, but I see very little in the more dramatic sections. Yes, it's the age-old argument of needing moar drama, one that has been said countless times I know. The fact that you tried to rule on an A/VB case as a regular user doesn't help this. I would advise holding back from rulings, and follow the more experienced sysops leads, until you're experienced enough to handle yourself in said drama sections. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Re: - That indecent was rather embarrassing but I'm honestly glad it happened. Otherwise I may have gone on thinking A/VB was open to voting by the public. IMO, it isn't 100% clear that public voting is not allowed. It certainly isn't in the vandalism policy. The only clue that its disallowed is in the form of an the vandal banning notices on the page (or possibly in some buried policy discussion which I haven't found yet). I admit, I should have read the page more thoroughly, though. ~ 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch - tbh, I used to think that Vapor was already a sysop... You never looked like a new user to me. -- †  talk ? f.u. 12:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Very, very reluctant against. He's very good at the gnome tasks (that should be the bulk of a prospective sysop's edits,) but he's made a few blunders, and doesn't seem to have a complete and total understanding of the rules yet, something which only really comes with time. If he's back in a couple of months, I'll happily vouch for him. Moar dramas would be nice too (but by no means necessary,) especially since as the wiki's population of sysops shrinks, sysops will have to be relied on to do everything. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Question What area of the wiki do you feel you can contribute to the most? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Re: - This came on somewhat suddenly so I haven't formulated exactly where I will contribute the most. The general idea is that I would speak with the current sysop team and find out where help is most needed. I would likely pick a few admin tasks which I would perform consistently and timely. Once I had my sysop feet beneath me I would likely find a reasonable project where I could use the tools given to me (reasonable in that it would be to the benefit to the wiki I would gather feedback before starting). ~ 20:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch - I hadn't really seen much of Red Hawk, Yon or Mis when I vouched for them and they all turned out fine. From what I can see Vapor seems more level headed than the last two guys, kinda like Aichon. I just hope the wiki doesn't grind his soul into powder along the way. =) --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• againist----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 22:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Vouch change of heart i rarely vote yes for a first time bid. and i like the way he dealt with yon's bullshit.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 08:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Abstain - but pretty much mimicking Link. -- LEMON #1 07:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Vouch - Handled Yon's PMS attack ridiculously well, including having the right answer in the first place. -- LEMON #1 23:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch - I am the corporeal extension of Misanthropy (not a penis). --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 11:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  This is a lie. Karl is my penis. 12:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Meatpuppetry's super-cool, right guys?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Even if it were (which I doubt, but won't argue), it doesn't matter. Say it with me three times, kids: A/PM isn't a popular vote. A/PM isn't a popular vote. A/PM isn't a popular vote. Thank you for your attention. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, sorry, I forgot that Misanthropy's non-wiki friends turning up whenever he wants something pushed through isn't meatpuppetry. I'm just making sure the crats don't mistake this for actual support.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  But Karl looooves me. He told me his self telepathically. I swear. ~ 18:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Okay now I think you're being a bit overreactive. Besides the fact that this question (see below) is completely shut (the answer being: no of course not duh), Karl was likely hanging around here naturally after that retarded arbitration case. Not to mention that meatpuppetery doesn't matter all in A/PM and the crats are smart enough themselves.--Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  If there was actual meatpuppetry, there'd be 5-15 Rum votes on the page. I was just hanging around to watch DevilAsh get banned for 8 years. Misanthropy is my meatpuppet (yes that's a euphemism) --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 11:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 16:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Question - Do you think that meatpuppetry is acceptable practice on the wiki?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Okay now I think you're being a bit overreactive. Besides the fact that this question is completely shut (the answer being: no of course not duh), Karl was likely hanging around here naturally after that retarded arbitration case. Not to mention that meatpuppetery doesn't matter all in A/PM and the crats are smart enough themselves.--Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thaaaaaaaaaaaaad, stop giving people the answers. >=( -- Cheese 20:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  bawwww, but it was so obvious ='(--Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, this had nothing to do with Karl, he just reminded me to ask the question.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Re: - No. ~ 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  If you were presented conclusive evidence of meatpuppetry, how would you rule in a vandalism case against the accused?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  (Answer 1: Seeing as meatpuppetery is very hard to prove and open to interpretation, what exactly is your definition of "conclusive evidence"?)

  (Answer 2: I do not believe that meatpuppetery should be dealt with through A/VB, rather creating a policy on what would/woulnd't be allowed on the subject of meatpuppets.) --Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Question one: Are you the prospective sysop candidate? Question Two: Are you the prospective sysop candidate?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  No, but I think your questions are silly. Trying to fish about how he would rule on very specific cases isn't the way to go anyway. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Meatpuppetry is one of the most controversial issues on the team at the moment, and I want to see where he stands.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Re: #2 - I would likely rule Not Vandalism. I don't believe meatpuppetry falls into into the definition of what is a bannable offense. Who would even be brought as a vandal? The puppet or the puppeteer? ~ 21:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Strongly Against - User believes that meatpuppetry should not be considered vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  You just called meatpuppetry a controversial issue, now your against his nomination simply because he doesn't follow your stance on it? --Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, because I consider it to be vandalism, and if his stance on it is that it's fine, then I think he'd make a poor sysop.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  You realize that the definition of meatpuppetery can be perceived differently and that the current sysops team does not currently have a consensus on the subject?--Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  He didn't seem to have that problem. Commented on your talk. Suggest a move of conversation to there.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Honestly, Yon if you showed me a vandal case involving meatpuppetry and I'm allowed to review it, I could give you an informed opinion how I would rule. Isn't it the responsibility of a sysop not to assume a an edit is vandalism? To say all meatpuppets are vandals goes against that. If you want to discuss it further off this page, I'd be happy to.~ 22:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yon, what the fuck is your damage? 23:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  To vote Strongly Against solely based on Yon's stance on a side-topic is ridiculous. Outright ridiculous. I really hope the crats laugh at that reasoning and throw it back into your face. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  It wasn't "Solely on that", I was already against, it just made me strongly.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Abstain - Haven't seen enough of you, people say you no what your doing, but personally I don't know :D--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 00:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think I'll support your bid. You seem to have been quietly going about the task of making the wiki better, and even when you do fuck up, you know how to go about fixing the problem with a minimum of fuss -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:13 8 January 2011 (BST)
• VOUCH seems a decent fellow to me --C Whitty 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• I've been mulling this over this the past few days. While I haven't seen a lot of you (mostly my fault for not being around much), what I have seen has been pretty good so I'm going to tentatively vouch for you on this occasion. -- Cheese 16:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch Not seen too much of you but then I don't spend so much time here as I used to.... What really swung it for me was your calm and sensible approach to Yon's badgering.--Honestmistake 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch Vapor is a KING! Vapor rulezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzeleven! I ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ Vapor! Vouch! Vouch! Vouch! I once saw Vapor jump thirty thousand feet in the air, I once saw Vapor do a skid on a BMX that lasted two weeks, I once saw Vapor bite the heads off one million zerges, I once saw Vapor rebuild an entire village with his bare-hands... And he has a ten inch wang, can fly, has superhuman strength, and can read minds... Vouch! Vouch! Vouch! x --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 10:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  I'm guessing that you're vouching for vapor. So does my imaginary garden gnome (who I name vapor). :P -- †  talk ? f.u. 13:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ross and I have talked about Vapor's bid. There's been a bit of discussion above and plenty of engagement by Vapor in the above bid, which I think strongly reflects upon his input across the entire wiki. Regardless of whether or not he doesn't have UDWiki's quirks nailed, Vapor is often willing to admit when he's made a mistake and apologise if necessary, with a rare level of transparency and honesty I've been missing since Aichon left. Since the community obviously trusts you to handle being a sysop, this has been processed as Successful. Keep up the good work, Vapor. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you DDR, Ross, and all those that vouched (and even those that did not) and I especially appreciate that last vouch by Lady Clitoria. I'm looking forward to this. I'm a pretty progressive learner but will likely need a couple of weeks to feel things out before really diving in. Time to catch up with the sysop team and see where I can be the most help. ~ 05:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)