UDWiki talk:Administration/Sysop Archives/Red Hawk One/2009-10-31 Promotion

Result

Alright, might as well get this on the road. I consider Red Hawk One a user trustworthy user when it comes to keeping his mind on his job and not getting carried away in activities he considers unnecessary on the wiki, ie. drama. There are an interesting number of againsts made critiquing Red Hawk One, not based on his experience or past work, but lack of such in drama fields such as A/VB, A/M and A/PD. There have been sysops who notoriously avoid these areas (ie. Rooster and Link) and stick to gnoming duties, and we consider them to be good sysops; and we should have more of these. I think we should all work towards being accepting towards these types of users as potential sysops, not because we should be obliged to, but because sysops with no drama aspirations and a hard-working attitude are ideal in no-nonsense, helpful operators.

To be able to promote a user under these circumstances, you have to trust the budding sysop to be capable of choosing to avoid the drama fields once the buttons are given, and Boxy and I trust Red Hawk One. Promoted. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoting a user with a 33% approval rating from the community, the last time we promoted someone with such low numbers it was Hagnat and look how well that turned out....

Considering the fact that nearly half of his vouches had no comments or nonsensical remarks it really makes the case for doing away with this system and letting the 'crats promote whoever they want given they are already. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot this was such a quantitative system we had here. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There's little point in asking for community input if not even 50% of those turning out to register their opinions would vouch for the candidate. His numbers are actually slightly higher in the early 40's I think. Potentially someone could receive a single vouch out of 21 votes and you could still promoted, since you aren't actually going with the majority (and it's not like this bid was meat-puppeted) it seems stupid to continue with a system that you out and out ignore. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I know how and why you are saying this and I understand- But we do have the best intentions at heart and Boxy and I did discuss this thoroughly enough to discuss all the points that the community raised- we are going to try and move towards a community where "needz moar drama" is no longer a prerequisite for sysops who have absolutely no tendency to confront it, and the only way to do that is to prove to them that it is the case. And now we have A/RE, so it means the outcome of our actions- whether it be in the form of them failing their first bid or the form of us failing for promoting too willingly- can and may have subsequent repercussions. I'm willing to stake my future position on striving towards this goal. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Two side points, first, it's not up to you and Boxy to be dictating through your positions where this community should be going that would be an act of moderation, you should be concerned about what this community needs and does not need right now. Hoping for a utopia isn't going to make it happen. Secondly, I heard you talk of staking your position before, yet to see you do anything to make sure you can't just change your mind when events go different to how you want. However both of these are not critical to the points here and can be debated elsewhere.

A/RE is insufficient, it'll allow him eight months of a Hagnat style sysop reign, falling back on "Well he'll be gotten rid of there" just won't cut it considering the problems he could cause. What you have is a candidate who was promoted on the basis of four vouches in effect if we discard the ones without comment and the idiot comments. Of the over 20 users that showed up, 20% trusted this candidate enough and wanted him to be a sysop enough to vouch and write an actual sentence saying so. What we have here is the polar opposite to J3D's second promotion, a candidate without support being promoted for no discernible reason, we don't have an unassailable mountain of moves/deletes/protections to go through. It's incomprehensible to me how a voted 'crat team can so blatantly disregard the community to put in someone without any perceivable merit, particularly when Rorybob took the time to engage criticism and justify himself to the community and ended up being rejected. If memory serves this candidate answered a single question and buried his head in the sand for the rest of his candidacy. J3D was advised to request demotion after his promotion, Red Hawk One should certainly do that if he cares in any way for the community. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hagnat floundered like a retard around the drama sections- Red Hawk One, I trust will not do such things. Why are you disregarding the entire point of our reasoning to suit your flawed argument? And FYI, I don't think he will bother considering self demote until users other than you kick up such a stink. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"And FYI, I don't think he will bother considering self demote until users other than you kick up such a stink." - Think he will yet? I don't know why you're taking this personally, this is an academic discussion as you cannot demote him now, only he can do that, you've burdened the community with a sysop it never wanted and with no way of getting rid of him for at least eight months. But back to the point I was making that started this, given that I'm not the only one who views this as a complete disregard for the community's input and concerns, do you want a policy proposing that does away with much of this system? It'll let you promote people like Ross instantly without having to wait two weeks, and will prevent the community feeling let down when you ignore them as you did here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I agree with Iscariot. He's said basically what I'm wondering.-- Adward  21:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As Drawde, thus as Iscariot. I don't have a problem with Red Hawk myself if he indeed does stay away from the drama sections, however there is nothing really stopping him besides the trust you speak off. Yet I do question why you go against the input of the community. If you and Boxy trust him, than that's all fine and dandy, but this isn't just about the trust of bureaucrats, it's also ,and mainly, about the community trust and I frankly don't see much of that here. Put the community's interest above your own next time, plz.--Thadeous Oakley 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow... You's completely disregarded the input of the community... And yes I know it's not a vote, it's not a popularity contest. But when a sysop bid clearly lacks community support -- as was the case here -- you should fucking pay attention. Sheesh. --WanYao 02:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for him to demote himself, as I figure now he can just give it a go, but as I said. We need sysops who do everything, not just the janitorial work (ex. Rooster) or drames (Like Conn used to be).-- SA 21:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but until we find sysops who can do everything, we shouldn't be limiting ourselves to such a vision when there are willing users who want to take on some of the other workloads. This is the entire point of what we are trying to show you all. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Do sops do stuff? I was wondering crats, what did you feel the main difference between Red and Rory was? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean besides the fact that Rory is dopey and up to the creation of his bid he was still making mistakes at tasks that Red Hawk One has been doing flawlessly since we've known him? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It was obviously rhetorical. If you want to delve any further into it, see Boxy's talk page. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

everyone shut the fuck up. pretty please? Cyberbob  Talk  23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Only because you said please.-- SA 23:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. You went against the wishes of the community... The No's outnumbered the Yes's, with several Abstentions. Most everyone who voted No had articulated reasons for saying No. Very few Yes votes had much substance. The community has every right to be dismayed. You may have dictatorially overruled the will of the community in this promotion, but you can't silence the dissent. No matter how much you wanna... --WanYao 02:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much as silencing dissent as it is getting people to stop bitching because there's not much we can do at this point to change what happened. :/ -- SA 02:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, not you too? Cyberbob  Talk  02:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)

Expressing our discontent is a valid and justifiable activity, SA. Even if there's nothing that can be done after the fact, if people are dismayed they ought to make their discontent known. And "shut the fuck up" coming from cyberbob of all people isn't a healthy or constructive way to deal with our (admittedly futile) discontent. And cyberbob's wonderfully mature and professional reply above just proves my point. --WanYao 02:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not a vote. See the top of the page? Not a vote.
• Yeah you're right it was all me, totally 100% me... ohwait I'm not a bureaucrat and haven't spoken to DDR one-on-one in weeks.
• row row etc

~fartz~ Cyberbob  Talk  02:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the "substance" that was expressed by the community was put into consideration. People like you only ever come to bring "dissent" onto the community and then you complain when you aren't treated as part of it. Your entire role on this wiki is to come once a month and complain about the status quo, god knows why you feel we don't listen to you. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I have other things to do doesn't invalidate my arguments. But we all know that you kids think you're the most important people on the wiki... And that because you have nothing better to do than edit conflict me every time I try to reply, that makes you more important... There's a reason, though, that a lot of good users have walked away from both this wiki and the game in recent months... But you're too close to it to see it. --WanYao 02:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, we run it, and by doing nothing less than a lot of hard work, so do as much work as we do and become a member of the community again or back the fuck off and watch it get run by those who keep it clean. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I count 9 Vouches, 8 Against, and 5 Abstains (or other comments). I know this isn't a vote, but to say that he had more against than for is incorrect. Just wanted to point that out. —Aichon— 02:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And we took all comments into consideration and made a decision. Wow, doesn't seem so totalitarian now does it? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I count 12 Vouches, 9 Against, and 4 Abstains (or other comments) for Rorybob. Yup, does seem completely fair to me. --Thadeous Oakley 12:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not being clear, let's break it down, we had 22 users give their input (disregarding Janus as the decision had been made before she contributed) and it breaks down thus:

• Vouch with a sentence - 4 users (DDR, Ross, Haliman and Giles)
• Vouch and nothing - 3 users (Bob Boberton and Winman)
• Vouch and a meme - 2 users (Cyberbob and Hagnat)
• Abstain with a sentence - 4 users (Yonnua, The Colonel, Lelouch and Aichon)
• Against with a sentence - 10 users (Wan, SA, Thad, Honest, Jed, Read, Pvt Mark, Harrison, Asheets and Iscariot)

Everyone who has expressed their opinion here knows this isn't a vote, but I quote from the very last line from the above header; "Once the two weeks are up, the Bureaucrats will review the community discussion and make a decision based upon it. The user will be notified of the status of their request, and will be promoted should it appear that the community is willing to accept them as a System Operator. ", so out of the community that saw fit to come and add to the discussion, only 4 wanted this candidate to be a sysop enough to write a sentence explaining why, whereas 10 definitely didn't want the candidate to be a sysop and gave their reasons why. 18% wanted him, and 45% didn't. Does it appear that this community was willing to accept this candidate as a sysop? No it doesn't. The community input has been overruled, and people aren't seeing the reason why, especially when Rorybob (who was a superior candidate) was denied promotion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A few quibbles:

• In the case of support, saying "vouch" is sufficient. Estimating the worth of opinions based on their length is not within the purview of the bureaucrats' power, nor is it justifiable, since this is supposed to merely be a demonstration of community support and a chance to offer opinions or ask questions. Demonstrating support does not necessitate waxing eloquent.
• Bureaucrats are supposed to consider the concerns raised, rather than the quantity or quality of comments. In terms of distinct opinions and concerns brought up, I only see a few different ones being offered. The primary reason for "against" opinions (7 of 9 againsts cited it) is concern over how he would handle drama and administrative duties of that sort. The bureaucrats addressed that issue in their discussions and in the promotion statement. While having the issue restated in multiple opinions is an indication that it worries many users, it does not indicate the issue is beyond being resolved or is even necessarily one of significance (though I do believe it is).
• Saying that only 18% wanted him in is twisting the facts. You yourself went from saying that only four wanted him with a major qualifying statement, to simply saying that four wanted him, qualifier excluded, which is a misleading oversimplification.

To be clear on my personal stance, I think the bureaucrats adequately addressed the major concern that was brought before them, though addressing the concern does not resolve it, in and of itself. Towards that, I take issue with the people who say their concerns were ignored or slighted, since I see evidence to the contrary (plus, their primary concern is invalidated by the new direction the 'crats are going with the sysops). That said, questioning the new direction that the 'crats are trying to take the sysops is something that is worth further discussion, but this isn't the appropriate venue to discuss that topic. It would be better taken to someplace else, I think, since the issue is separate from (though related to) this promotion. —Aichon— 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the fact that buereacrats have taken it upon themselves to act as moderators is certainly something that needs to be discussed elsewhere. However back to the points in hand.

• I certainly messed up the numbers on my first pass, however these numbers are accurate, the decision was made before Janus appeared and even if we take just the keywords, there are 8 vouches, 4 abstentions and 10 againsts. To quote that line again; "should it appear that the community is willing to accept them as a System Operator", it still doesn't appear that the community is willing to accept the candidate as a sysop, it appears that less than half of the community is willing to accept the candidate as a sysop.
• "It is instead merely a request for comments from the wiki community. " - Do you honestly expect me to accept Beep, Boop as comment regarding the candidate's suitability for promotion? Tell me how we can distinguish this comment that you are taking as a vouch from a sarcastic response as has appeared on other promotion candidacies. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that your numbers are generally correct (I'd quibble on Janus and SA), but it makes no difference. Most of the Against opinions were based on the same concern. Playing devil's advocate, given that the bureaucrats felt they had addressed the concern that was holding back general support, is it not then reasonable to promote? Personally speaking, I'd have preferred to have seen the new stance on sysops clarified before the decision, since it would have tipped my opinion to a vouch. I imagine others would have as well, since the major concern would have evaporated. Again though, supposition, but I think it's a reasonable, though not optimal, approach for the 'crats to have taken.

Regarding inane comments, I would treat them as generic statements of whatever opinion is highlighted, and interpret them as such. In the case of Beep boop, the word "Vouch" was bolded, making his stance clear. Anything after that was dressing, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, and this is probably the best example we saw. It doesn't invalidate the support he's placing, but his "opinion" doesn't offer much up for consideration, to say the least.

As for sarcastic comments, I think it's a bit of a straw man, but to answer it anyway, sarcasm doesn't play out well via text, so if someone is, well, stupid enough to bold an opinion other than the one that they actually hold to, I'm inclined to take their comment at face value, rather than trying to interpret it. Otherwise, we get a "hanging chad" situation. —Aichon— 19:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The comments are quite clear that the community wants to see the change from the candidate first, not for the 'crats to say the candidate is trustworthy and play wait and see with admin powers. That being said the community can be against because a user has a purple user page if they want, the standard is up to the community to set, the numbers as can be seen show that the community does not accept this candidate as a sysop, hence why the uproar. The fact that the candidate has been active on the wiki and is apparently refusing to engage the community over their concerns is pretty much proof of my personal reservations over the bid, sysops are answerable to the community, this candidate has been promoted against the community will and is burying his head in the sand and ignoring them. This is certainly not a reassuring course of action from this user. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot, in your next tally, include me as one of the people who wanted Red Hawk to make sysop. If you read my comment, you'd know that I only abstained because I thought he needed drama experience. In fact, many of the againsts and abstains were because he didn't have drama experience. DDR's decision was based around the ideal that Red wouldn't get involved in drama. Hence, those comments aren't really relevant to the discussion. The crats needed to take in to account the character and wiki-management skills of the candidate, not his drama capabilities, as he won't be involved with drama. And before you assume that he will, he won't. I know this because he messaged me before he even ran saying he wasn't interested in drama. If you aren't happy, fine. Just don't spam admin pages with your annoyance.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your bolded keyword was Against was it not? The discussion that was supposed to be reviewed had your position as against, yes? Saying that you won't get involved in drama quietly to people doesn't seem to cut it now does it? It is up to the community to decide what they want from their sysops, the majority of this community expressed concerns over how the candidate would react to drama, given some of the previous sysops on this wiki it is a valid concern. Right now we have someone running around the wiki with all the buttons who is not wanted by the community, someone who according to you doesn't think he answers to the community, someone who wouldn't even post here after starting his bid to address the community. And all we have to ensure us that this user will not rush in and start ruling and banning people in the drama areas is his word? That was half the basis of the community's reservation about promoting this candidate, the fact they didn't know them so couldn't appraise whether their word was any good or not. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

People were operating under the assumption that all sysops must deal with drama as part of the job and were rightfully concerned over his lack of drama experience. However, if that basic assumption is upended, as it was here (which, again, should be open for discussion elsewhere), then the related concerns are rendered moot. There's no need for him to demonstrate change at all, so I'm not sure where you were going with that in your earlier comment. Really, as you point out, the question becomes one of whether we trust him to stay away from drama. If he abuses that trust (which I don't expect, personally), he's answerable to the community at A/RE and will fail then, which is what the 'crats discussed and decided was reasonable. As for coming here to establish trust, I certainly can't blame him for avoiding this drama, considering his presence would only serve to stir some people up. —Aichon— 20:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No. My bolded keyword was not against. Ammend your argument.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you need me to quote the top of the page again? Shit, it even has it in nice big letters to make it easy to read for you. Cyberbob  Talk  12:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the "this aint a vote" thing. But, as I already said up there, I'd like it if the bureaucrats put the community's opinion above their own. I really don't see that here, correct me if I'm blind.--Thadeous Oakley 12:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're aware that it isn't a vote, and you claim to not have a problem with that... then turn around and basically say you want it to be a vote. Cyberbob  Talk  14:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No Bob, Bureaucrats should overrule the community, when it's clear the user in question is using meat or sockpuppets (which is exactly the reason why I think this shouldn't be a vote) or something in that manner. I don't see that here. Basically, Community Trust > Bureaucratic Trust. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MisterGame (talk • contribs) .

So now you're saying it should be a vote with a few exceptions - that really are rather rare anyway, so effectively it's a straight vote. Cyberbob  Talk  15:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Look closely at the against and abstain "votes" a hell of a lot of them (mine included) would have been vouches if Sysop status did not automatically include the power to rule on vandalism and misconduct.... Perhaps its time to look again at making those judgements require a seperate vote so that when sysops say we were vouched as "trusted users" it can be taken seriously. Clearly Red is not trusted in those areas because we have nothing to go on.... Saying he will not be active there is nonsense, Grim said that in his promotion bid too by the way! --Honestmistake 12:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you fuckheads keep re-electing these assholes to Crat positions when all you do is bitch about them doing their one and ONLY 'Crat job? Either shut the fuck up and vote them out or shut the fuck up. But nooooooooo Bob and Nubis would be too controversial as Crats. Coming from the 2 people Nubis wanted to promote it's amusing to say the least.-- #99 ^DCC 15:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Which Nubis are you talking about? He/she/it went through so many iterations I'm thinking we had a time lord present. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We do; haven't you seen the blue phone box in Roftwood? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Flame-y Flame, mixed in with a little "ZOMG CRAT BIAS." followed by considered arguments. I got this mammoth wall of text figured out? Also, win commment by Lelouch, right ^ there.(17:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)) --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}17:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the "U DUN LISEN TO ME" and "STFU", but other than that, pretty much. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC) If I'm so win, stop edit conflicting me!!