|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Shortcut|[[A/PM]]}} | | {{Shortcut|[[A/PM]]}} |
| {{Moderationnav}} | | {{Administrationnav}} |
| {{Promotions Intro}} | | {{:A/PM/Intro}} |
| ==Candidates still requiring vouches==
| |
| ''There are no candidates requiring vouches''
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Candidates currently under community discussion== | | ==Candidates Being Discussed== |
| <!--''There are no candidates currently under community discussion''--> | | <!--- |
| ===[[User:Yonnua Koponen|Yonnua Koponen]]===
| |
| {{vndl|Yonnua Koponen}}
| |
|
| |
|
| Alright, so it's been a month since I was nominated by Thad, but as I said at the time, I thought it would be best to wait a month before running. So, the basic skin of the matter. I'm experienced in all manners of wiki activities. I know the admin pages well. I've also performed several large scale janitorial tasks. I helped Ross kick the Orphans, and I've been helping to keep the list down since then. I archive the suburb news once a month, an activity which I just performed on Thursday. Generally, I'm an active member of the community, and I'm hoping to take it to the next level, and help contributing as part of the sysop team. Well then, err, thanks for any vouches, and if you have any queries or issues, feel free to express them.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 12:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| | ''There are no candidates at this time.'' |
|
| |
|
| *<s>'''Abstain''' {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 13:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)</s>
| | !---> |
| *:'''Against''' - Nah, too obnoxious. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 17:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| | ''There are no candidates at this time.'' |
| *'''Weak Against''' - You've been getting better at everything but you aren't someone I trust when handling drama- and it's not something I have faith you'll stay away from. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 13:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Everything you do is positively contributing to the wiki. You're not afraid to have an opinion, but you're not a dick, either. I'm sure you can handle the drama and be a good janitor. 'Nuff said.--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 13:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Weak Vouch''' -Both as DDR and Giles. And hell, you kicked <s>the</s> some of the Orphans! --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *:I got rid of a few. Maybe 100 odd. Ross did about 15 times as many as me. Mine was a very small part.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 13:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *::Fixed. ^ --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 20:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| * '''Vouch''' - You're a keeper. {{User:Rorybob/Sig}}14:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| * Slightly weaker '''vouch''' than last time. Although the admin stuff is all there, some of your dealings with the more prickly wiki users have been less than perfect. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| * '''Ross'''.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 15:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| * '''Vouch''' - I trust him to what is right. ---{{User:Michaleson/sig}} 15:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Weak Against''' - He is an active member of the UDwiki community, but as sysop, he would potentially have to deal with conflicts among other members. I have experience on a firsthand basis how thin skinned and immature he can be at times. --[[User:FLZombie|FLZombie]] 16:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *:That would be when you accused me of vandalism, and I then showed you inconclusive proof that it wasn't me?--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *::Not all questions or complaints have to be taken personally, Yonnua. It was not a vandalism accusation - if I actually did think it was, I would have reported it as such. It was a simple request to not alter the map - which may have occurred accidentally. I included images to show proof that the map was accurate as I had fixed it - not knowing that I had attributed the changes to you erroneously. Yes, I apologized to you - twice in fact - in view of how upset you were evidenced by your childish name calling. I am an otherwise helpful editor, at a level of expertise that could only be described as beginner or novice. I am not a troublemaker, and was attempting only to help. The wiki is a place where editors of all levels of experience contribute, and perhaps I should avoid dealing with you in the foreseeable future. I think you are a great editor, and I wish you the best, but as Sysop, it is expected that you will have to deal with more that a fair share of "stupid pricks... posting slanderous(sic) accusations" and you can't get into a fight every single time. I will end my involvement in this discussion with an apology for having caused you so much trouble. --[[User:FLZombie|FLZombie]] 01:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *:::Just a small note; Don't call someone thin skinned and immature, when you don't want him to take it personally. That was a personal accusation alright. That was it. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 18:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| * '''Weak Keep''' - He's a nice guy who does tons of wiki-helpful things, but that's not what makes a sysop. I'm unsure of his drama-immunity; though I've seen him avoid plenty, I've also seen him get caught up in a few shitstorms. I'd probably be more enthusiastic if I knew why you wanted sysop powers, Yon.{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 17:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *: To help out with the general admin tasks and flow of the wiki. Give me something to do on weekends. Also to provide support when other admins are absent. Oh, I also want to enforce a harsh ansd ruthless dictatorship to crush any wiki-resistance. ;) --{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 17:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::So you basically want op buttons for teh lulz and to rule on dramatic cases?{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 02:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| * '''against''' Active player, but says NO to every suggestion --[[User:Winman1|Winman1]] 17:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *: Umm, no I don't...?--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *::He's just butthurt because his ideas suck.{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 02:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Just to counter winman1's incredibly lame rationale. (oh and he does good work too) --'''[[User:BobBoberton|<span style="color: #FF4500">Bob Boberton</span>]] <sup>[[The_Fortress|<span style="color: #6B8E23">TF</span>]] / [[The_Fortress/Dark_Watch|<span style="color: #778899 ">DW</span>]]</sup>''' [[Image:Littlemudkipsig.gif]] 18:20, 15 November 2009 (BST)
| |
| *'''Against''' - you sound like you're black... insta-against--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 19:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *:I love you(r) Rak.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 21:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Seems like he'd be good. [[User :Armpit Odor|<span style="color:red"><sup>A</sup><span style="color:green"><sub>O</sub><span style="color:red"><sup>R</sup><span style="color:green"><sub>D</sub><span style="color:red"><sup>M</sup><span style="color:green"><sub>O</sub><span style="color:red"><sup>P</sup><span style="color:green"><sub>R</sub><span style="color:red"><sup>I</sup><span style="color:green"><sub> ! </sub><span style="color:red"><sup>T</sup></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>]] - 20:49 15 November 2009 (BST)
| |
| *'''Weak Against''' - I actually would've been more up for supporting you last month. In recent history though, you've had a few lapses in judgement, such as the suggested policy that didn't go through, the dealings with Iscariot's vandal data, and one or two other matters that I don't recall off the top of my head. None of them are permanent black marks, but, as DDR mentioned, I'm afraid I wouldn't trust you with drama, which you've demonstrated an interest in getting involved in. I think you're a nice guy and do good work around the wiki (even thanked you for it earlier this week), but the drama issue is something I can't get around right now. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 20:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Against''' - I don't think you are ready for the responsibilities involved in being a sysop. Don't take it personally. I think you're pretty cool, though :P --[[User:Chekken|Chekken]] 01:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Against''' i'll change it to vouch if you promise to kick bob in the nuts once a month.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - because i hated Winman's suggestions too --{{User:The Colonel/Sig}} 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''weak against''' - You're a solid user, but I'm not quite convinced that you're sysop material. Not yet -- and one extra month isn't time enough... However, I don't think it matters what the community thinks anymore... c.f. red hawk one... le sigh --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *:+1 Mr. Yao. +1 --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 02:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Against''' -If I get in a mood where I feel like causing a ruckus, I would do it when you are on watch, because I don't think you are good enough to handle my shit. Hence, you vicariously shit yourself. You would understand if you gave yourself more than a months waiting time, instead of going away, making no improvements or endearing yourself to the community at large, besides getting in shitfights (and losing them) against some of the userbase and ultimately proving that if shit goes down, you can't handle it--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 07:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Against''' - Holy crap, been scrappin the bottom of the bloody barrel for awhile now on these promotion bids, but this is scrappin the shit off the floor underneath the barrel.{{User:Zombie Lord/sig2}} <tt>07:43 16 November 2009(BST)</tt>
| |
| *:come back when you have had some real experience at creating mild shock.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 07:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *::Not interested in shock, mild or otherwise. It's just the sad truth.{{User:Zombie Lord/sig2}} <tt>07:47 16 November 2009(BST)</tt>
| |
| *'''Against''' A frequent contributer who does a lot of useful work but I am not sure Yonnua could even contemplate being a neutral judge when dealing with anyone he disagree's with and that is an absolute must for sysophood. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *<s>'''Against''' Only a month between bids? [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)</s>
| |
| *:Because I didn't accept the last one, and wanted to run now.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 15:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *::Fair enough... '''Weak Vouch''', but weak only just because I don't know him very well. [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 21:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - i trust him not to fuck with the tools that will be given to him, nor to abuse his ruling powers in his favor... has he little experience with admin stuff, sure. But there are several other sysops that can help him see the way(tm) --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 16:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Against''' Not a good fit at the present. --{{User:Marcusfilby/sig}} 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - As Giles, also disagree on the drama thing, he's better than most at avoiding it. --[[User:Explodey|Explodey]] 20:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Weak Vouch''' - Good user, and I trust him enough for buttons. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Against''' - Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with Sexylegsread. -- {{User:BlackReaper/sig}} 04:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Against''' - conflict can get nasty! --[[User:C Whitty|C Whitty]] 23:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Recently Concluded Bids== | | ==Recent Bids== |
| ''For more concluded bids, see [[:Category:Promotions Candidacies|Promotion Candidacies]].''
| |
|
| |
|
| ===[[User:Red Hawk One|Red Hawk One]]=== | | ===[[User:Hagnat]]=== |
| {{vndl|Red Hawk One}}
| | *[[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Hagnat/2019-08-14 Promotion|Archived as Unsuccessful]]. |
|
| |
|
| Hello,
| | ===[[User:DanceDanceRevolution]]=== |
| | *[[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/DanceDanceRevolution/2018-07-30 Promotion|Archived as Successful]]. |
|
| |
|
| I have actively contributed to the wiki since July 2009, and have worked intermittently since early 2009. In this time I was the driving force behind completing the [[BIC]] (as documented [[User:Red Hawk One/My BIC|here]] and in my contributions), and partially behind the recent revival in demerging locations pages (as evidenced in the prior link, as well as the previous three month's A/SD records). I often follow [[A/SD]], [[A/PT]], and [[A/MR]], although as a regular user I am currently unable to really do anything on those pages. So far as I can tell, I have made no enemies, and am polite and professional in my conduct with other users. For these reasons, I wish to run for sysop, in order to better maintain the wiki as an information source for the game.
| | ==Archived Bids== |
| | | ''For earlier promotion bids, see the following:'' |
| Thank you,
| | *[[:Category:{{CURRENTYEAR}}_Promotion_Archives|This year's promotion bids]] |
| | | *[[:Category:{{LASTYEAR}}_Promotion_Archives|Last year's promotion bids]] |
| --{{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 05:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
| | *[[A/SA|Sysop Archives]] for older bids and related sysop activities |
| | |
| *'''Vouch''' - Demonstrates an interest in the wiki and how it works. Shows no issues with drama or poor handling of drama. A good janitor. The more of these users we have, the better. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 06:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' --'''[[User:BobBoberton|<span style="color: #FF4500">Bob Boberton</span>]] <sup>[[The_Fortress|<span style="color: #6B8E23">TF</span>]] / [[The_Fortress/Dark_Watch|<span style="color: #778899 ">DW</span>]]</sup>''' [[Image:Littlemudkipsig.gif]] 07:10, 31 October 2009 (BST)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Beep boop {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 07:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Against''' - No involvement in administrative or policy pages. There's no need for you to have sysop powers in order to remain a valuable contributor to the wiki. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *Like I said, I'd need to know how you react in a hostile situation before I could approve of you. We've always had too many strictly janitor sysops and not enough judges to judge the damned and stuff. Fuck I'm not even sure what I was going to say anymore.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 09:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Against''' - Unless he stays away from the drama sections. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 09:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' however, '''Question'''. What would you do with your sysops powers, and why do you need them? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *:'''Question''' answered on my talk page if anyone wants to read the response. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Abstain''' - I'd vouch you straight out of the gate, but you need more drama experience. Argh, why are all the people I want as sysops runnign at the same time!--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 11:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Against''' If Sysop status just gave you the ability to tidy things up easier I would vouch. It doesn't though, it also calls upon you to make fine judgements about vandals, misconduct etc... and for that people should have at least some evidence of how you would exercise that judgement. In otherwords.... get some experience in the areas that show your judgemnt. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 11:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | |
| *'''Exremely Weak Vouch''' - You've done ALOT of work for this wiki, but if you want to get strong supports, you should get on more admin pages. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 13:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Abstain''' - While doing a lot for the wiki, i must agree with Honestmistake about vandals, and misconduct. I will say i log in a lot and on Recent Changes you have done quiet a bit of work. --{{User:The Colonel/Sig}} 14:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch'''--[[User:Winman1|Winman1]] 21:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Abstain''' - Who? Also, what's with all the sudden flood of Sysop bids?{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 04:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *:They all felt like now would be the best time to run. It's not like the amount should change your opinion of whether someone deserves 'ops or not.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 04:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *:: I abstained because I've never met the guy and know nothing about him, and am therefore unqualified to judge his character or usefulness as a sysop. It is wierd that there are so many bids though.{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 18:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''No'''' who the fuck are you even, I dont even know even what are you right? So bad.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 05:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Knows what he's doing, has made plenty of good contributions and is able to be critical without being a douche. Great user and would make a great sysop.--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 14:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | |
| *'''Against''' - You don't need extra buttons to do what you do. You don't need extra buttons to improve the wiki. I don't want you to have extra buttons because I have no idea of how you're going to act when you get on A/VB or A/M. This notion that people who implement new systems and templates on the wiki will make good sysops is simply idiotic, they either make a mess of rulings or they just stick their heads in the sand and ignore these pages even when they are required. We already have two drama adverse sysops simply taking up space on the roster, I don't want more that will leave ruling in the hands of a small group. We need sysops that can rule based on understanding this community, its precedents and policies. They can then be taught to move/delete/restore pages far quicker than we can teach you what you need to know about vandalism, misconduct and good faith. Also, messing up a move isn't serious, causing a ruling to go the wrong way because you want to be nice can have much more serious consequences for this community. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Against''' - As [[User:WanYao|WanYao]] and (surprisingly) [[User:Iscariot|Iscariot]]. --[[User:Macampos|Private Mark]] 22:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Abstain''' - I've seen your edits and agree that you're a valuable contributor, but I don't feel that I have a grasp of how you would handle certain situations that sysops must face. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 00:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Yawn, nahhh''' - charlie does everything janitorish about 5 minutes ''before'' its due to be done and so as iscariot, well his first sentence - i assume the rest is in a similar vein. {{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - in soviet russia, promotions vouchs you --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''against''' needs moar drama... tell iscariot to shut the fuck up a lot more. that would swing my vote.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 17:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *'''against''' -- In the past I have generally voted against people who nominate themselves. All the candidates I've ever voted for had somebody else nominate him/her. I sense a pattern... [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | |
| *<s>'''Vouch''' -Good contributor; liked his answer on Rosslessness' talk page. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 14:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)</s><small>Response after input period closed struck -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)</small>
| |
| :[http://tinyurl.com/65bw37 :'(] --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 16:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::You're comment is valid, Janus, donut worry! --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 17:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::We iz profesionls! --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 23:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Shush up, I've had a bad day with spellinga nd ragmmar. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::This is not a voting process, all vouches are valid while the bureaucrat team does not reach a decision. Vouch unstruck --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 17:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::Leave it striken, it's ok and it's still readable. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 17:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ====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'''. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 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. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 12:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::I forgot this was such a quantitative system we had here. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 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. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 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. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 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. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 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. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 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. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::Surprisingly, I agree with Iscariot. He's said basically what I'm wondering.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 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.--[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 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. --[[User:WanYao|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).--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 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. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 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? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 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? --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 22:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Yeah. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::It was obviously rhetorical. If you want to delve any further into it, see Boxy's talk page. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 22:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Cheers. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| everyone shut the fuck up. pretty please? {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Only because you said please.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 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... --[[User:WanYao|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. :/ --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 02:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::Oh no, not you too? {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 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. --[[User:WanYao|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~ {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 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. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 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. --[[User:WanYao|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. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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? --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 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. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 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. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 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.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 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. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 20:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::::::No. My bolded keyword was not against. Ammend your argument.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 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. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 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.--[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 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. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 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. {{unsigned|MisterGame|}}
| |
| :::::::::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. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 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! --[[User:Honestmistake|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.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 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. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::We do; haven't you seen the blue phone box in Roftwood?{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 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? <small>Also, win commment by Lelouch, right ^ there.</small>(17:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)) {{User:rorybob/Sig}}17:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :You're missing the "U DUN LISEN TO ME" and "STFU", but other than that, pretty much.{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC) If I'm so win, stop edit conflicting me!!
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| ===[[User:Rorybob|Rorybob]]===
| |
| | |
| '''Rejected''' and [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Rorybob|archived]]. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 23:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ===[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]]===
| |
| | |
| '''Promoted''' and [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Rosslessness (3)|archived]]. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 13:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==Archived Promotions==
| |
| | |
| *[[:Category:Promotions Candidacies|Complete list of Promotion Requests]]
| |
| *[[:Category:Successful Promotions Candidacies|Successful Promotions Candidacies]]
| |
| *[[:Category:Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies|Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies]]
| |
| *[[:Category:Unaccepted Nominations|Unaccepted Nominations]]
| |
| *[[:Category:Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies|Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies]]
| |
