UDWiki:Administration/Promotions

Shortcut:
A/PM

Candidates still requiring vouches

Place all new promotion bids under this header

Candidates currently under community discussion

User:J3D

Hey, it's me again. One of the main concerns last time i applied was my vandalism, while i can't go back and have it not happen, i haven't had any vandalism warnings etc since my promotion bid in july and, due to my invovlement in the wiki all existing bannings have been struck. I basically want to be a sysop as it would allow me to better perform various roles around the wiki and i feel i'd provide a different perspective than the existing team. Theres no need to be concerned about me being another inactive sysop, i've been around for 18 months plus and i've got no plans to leave anytime soon. Ummm if you want to know anymore i suggest you read over my old bid, i went into a few lengthly speels there. If you have any questions feel free to ask, etc etc.-xoxo 05:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Vouch - he's a good'n.--Nallan (Talk) 05:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Vouch - The way I see it is, Jed wants to be a sysop. He will work tirelessly and fairly because he wants this job so badly. This is what we need on this wiki. We need sysops who want to do the jobs they are asked to do. Today, we have sysops who decide they are going to become inactive in times of controversy, perhaps a time when they are most needed. They don't rule on A/VB or A/M and they don't have a say in pressing or important deletions cases because giving their opinion may make them look bad, or might lose them "respect". We need more sysops who are willing to do the work that may lose them friends, but is ultimately right for the wiki. Jed is the right man for this job, and always has been.--CyberRead240 05:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  I would just like to add, that people need to learn the difference between the rulings on the VB page. Jed has not had a warning against him since July. Regardless of how many times he has been put up on A/VB, he has not been warned since his last promotion bid. That is the fact to look at, because it is the only indicator of vandalism, their report. Also, like someone else said, Vandalism should not really be an issue, being a sysop is not a license to vandalize. Thats why we have A/M.--CyberRead240 04:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain - He seems like a decent fellow, but unfortunately, I just don't know enough about him to make a valid judgment. Linkthewindow ^Talk 08:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Vouch Questions: what sysop only tasks do you want to focus on and what parts of the wiki are you most active in at the moment?--Honestmistake 08:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  I'm more or less active across the wiki, there's not a whole lot i don't stick my head in and check out every now and then. I used to have nothing to do with suggestions but i'm a regular on Developing Suggestions and a vote whenever i see suggestions nowadays. In regards to sysop powers , protecting and unprotecting will be a big one, many archival tasks need that and it's always annoying when you go to do something and see you can't, a/vb obviously as i've always been involved with a/vb in one way or another as well as akule's new unbanning of permabanned users discussion and of course deletions stuffs. Yeah that pretty much covers it.--xoxo 08:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  Good answers, I don't doubt your skill or commitment but i do worry slightly about your judgement... that said you do show a willingness to discuss and if necissary modify your opinion and that together with your oft stated desire to see Sysops become more accountable to the community make me more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt--Honestmistake 14:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Question: I want to know what has changed about your attitude and responsibility to the wiki and its community since your first promotion bid. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  My attitude and responsibility to the wiki are much the same as they were last time, my views on sysopshipness have changed slightly, which i guess comes from the changing of the guard. If you mean regarding vandalism, then i'm fairly sure my clean sheet since july says everything i need to.--xoxo 11:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Vouch - he cares for this place. This is more than enough for me. I dont like what he did to ALiM, but that doesnt change the fact that i think he would do a good job being a psyop --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 10:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Vouch Because I like it when a sysop pays enough attention to make edits like this. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  Haha glad you 'preciate it. It was really annoying me so i had to get it :P --xoxo 10:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly, some of his behaviour in the past has been a bit iffy. But we all have done stuff like it, so its not that big of a deal.I'm willing to put my opinion behind him, but on one condition. Should the community decide that he's no longer fit, he will agree to put him self up for a review of some sort.We don't need another sysops that no one trusts being around, and then we can't get rid of him. So, a compromise. Seems fair enough to me, as we don't have an official channel for review yet.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  fyi i do plan to put up a voting to axe sysops policy in the near future. I do have doubts it'll pass though, we shall see.--xoxo 11:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Vouch - From what I've seen from many of his edits, he sounds like a decent person. Plus, I've never had any personal problems with him, so why not? If he wants the SysOp position this badly, then let him have it. If he performs poorly, yank him. But if he performs above and beyond the calls of a normal SysOp, then it's a win for the Wiki community.-- Ωmega360 ^T 13:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Vouch. Am I allowed to comment here? I'm just a peon. Whatever. I'm going to comment here. I like this guy. Look at ALiM; if that's not commitment to the wiki, I don't know what is. If you're worried about vandalism, well, that's stupid. This isn't some sort of "license to vandalize" here. --Blackboard 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain - You've improved, but things like the truckload of drama on last month's A/VB says to me that you're not quite ready yet. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [513,04]} 13:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Against. I have nothing against your contributions to the wiki in general, but I have a real problem with your attitude and the company you keep. Just re-reading the Oct. A/VB page made my mind up. I don't think you are ready yet based on your comment to boxy when he was voting not vandalism on your 1st (of 3) VB cases. Wow i'm impressed! Correct! Gotta be the first time in, what, a month? Since you probably didn't mean it i'll let you change your decision and rule based on your personal opinions of users.--J3D 08:40, 24 October 2008 (BST) And yes, I am basing this on my "personal opinion of users." While I know we can all be dicks from time to time I would think that someone trying to get a sysop position would be more willing to work with the current sysops.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah that comment was a pretty bad error in judgment on my part and i recognised that almost immediately after but there was no point removing it as you can't actually delete anything off the wiki, it's always still there. The reason i said that was because the sysops who were on the wiki at the time were blatantly disregarding policy and doing what they wanted. Admittedly they were under pressure from the edit war occurring but the fact that the only active sysop was boxy and that he was making what i felt were the wrong decisions was starting to get to me. In hindsight considering what he walked in on boxy did do a reasonable job cleaning the mess up and sorting everybody out. Anyway yeah, thanks for the feedback.--xoxo 23:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Vouch. Top guy, helped me when i started, when no one else did, so yeah give him a chance!!!--Jay 15:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Against - I have no problem with you but, this bid reeks of an attempt to get promoted through two new and relatively inexperienced 'crats because Grim is gone. I'm pretty sure that if I were 'crat instead of Cheeseman you wouldn't have even considered it, same with boxy, Nubis, or any other sysop you could have been sure would actually force consideration of promotions before promoting willy nilly(yes I find it strange having boxy on that list but it's become a really short list). Much like the last bid you share much in common with Cheeseman, that's not good and I don't want another stint of what it was like right after Cheeseman was promoted, too much work for everyone else. You're a part of the community but not the parts where you'll be forced to monitor; More than that, you've spent a lot of time around A/VB for all the wrong reasons.--Karek^maps?! 18:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  This clearly shows i had intent to run before the current crats were chosen, and if that's not early enough well i can tell you without evidence that i have been considering rerunning for awhile now. Of course if grim was a crat i wouldn't run again because i'd know that i wouldn't get it. I wasn't aware that was against the rules. If it was you, Nubis, swiers or any of the other handful of sysops i wouldn't have a problem running. Boxy i would have to consider but i feel boxy can look objectively so if he had got another term then i think i would have gone for it anyway and if he declined well then that's that.--xoxo 23:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  Also, while i certainly don't have a problem with you having an opinion, i find it bizarre that you vouched for hagnat here when he freely admitted that he was rerunning for sysop because Grim was gone. That's not even my reason, but if it were i can't see why you'd have problem with this from one user and not another... o.0 --xoxo 00:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  Those certainly were very different circumstances as far as the Grim relationship goes. That had more to do with how hagnat got demoted than anything else.--Karek^maps?! 04:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Vouch Willy-nillies for EVERYBODY!!!! Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Vouch Because I can. --JaredV 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Vouch - Though, I have a concern when you said you went into "a few lengthy speels "--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  I love speels :D --xoxo 01:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Vouch To put it simply, why not? -- Cisisero 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Stongly Against -
  
  It's only a week or two ago that J3D (along with others) was filling up the admin pages with ridiculous edit wars and petty A/VB reports, because they wanted to keep superfluous redirects to their user pages -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:34 5 November 2008 (BST)

  The only redirects i actually wanted to keep were DDR and AHLG, i merely felt that the community should be allowed to vote on them on A/D. It's a damn good thing i stuck to my guns too because it seems that DDR and AHLG will pass A/D. Of course new votes may change this, but it was certainly worth getting them put up for voting. If i was sysop i would continue to follow established procedure and allow the community to have a say on pages like that because this wiki exists for the people (lame, i know) and if they want a page and it doesn't cause anyone any harm, it should exist, simple as that.--xoxo 00:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  At the moment, all of those redirects have more delete than keep votes on them. They should have all went when on the speedydelete page. And the reason why we shouldn't allow anyone to have a redirect to their user page in the main namespace, is that when everyone wants them, there will be even more drama, every other week. How many Nicks and Bobs and Sarahs out there who would all want the same redirect to their own userpage? To say nothing about ridiculous redirects like this also being created for users. You simply have no interest in keeping the wiki tidy, which is what sysops are supposed to do. In fact you seem to delight in messing with it as much as you can get away with, which is fine for regular users, but I not what I expect from a prospective sysop -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:09 5 November 2008 (BST)

  Ah it seems you're right, i must have miscounted. Anyway DDR and AHLG are a tad different to Nick, hell i voted delete on J3D. Anyway we disagree on this, i don't feel that having AHLG exist makes the wiki more messy, i think it makes it more usable. You disagree. As countless edits show i actually have a lot of interest in keeping the wiki tidy, this for example, i've made countless similar edits in my time here, that's just the one freshest in my head.--xoxo 01:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  Question If you want to "follow established proceedure" why do you have A/VB cases against you? That seems the be the simplest procedure to follow yet you have a problem with it. Why should anyone believe that you can follow the more complicated and "grey" procedures?--– Nubis ^NWO 00:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  Like i said, i haven't gotten a warning since july, I've already addressed that. Cases that get declared not vandalism are meaningless. I could make cases against anyone for anything and that person would have a case against them forever, it'd just get declared not vandalism. Of the cases that were brought against me one was me emboldening boxy's ruling (definitely not vandalism), one was undeleting a page that should never have been deleted, the fact that it is infact likely to pass A/D is testament to this and the third case centred around me making a mistake while reverting vandalism. Sorry for that but like i said at the time, my priority was reverting the vandal edits, yes i accidentally reverted more, but that was quickly fixed. Also for me A/D is not a grey area. In fact it's one of the most clear cut areas regarding policy on the wiki.--xoxo 00:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  You recreated that page despite being told that it wasn't going to be undeleted, you are extremely lucky not to have a warning for that, given the fact that you willfully recreated it. The polite warning you got was designed for newbies who recreate userpages in the main namespace, or things like that. You knew what you were doing, and saw a loophole to do it without being officially warned. Again, not sysop material -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:14 5 November 2008 (BST)

  The page was deleted while it was on the deletions page as it had received a keep vote on speedy deletes. I was the only person on at the time with the slightest interest in following policy designed to better the wiki, if that makes me not sysop material then so be it.--xoxo 01:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Abstain - Sorry man, said I'd vote for you, but the drama in October's edit wars kind of swayed me a bit. Don't worry though, you have this in the bag, just like Obama...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  Okay I'm not having a go at you for the sake of it... But... Strong Abstain. I love it! It's not just fence sitting, its DECISIVE fence sitting. mwahahaha. I can't wait to give someone a strong abstain sometime. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  Heh, you didn't say you would, you just implied it, sneaky, sneaky. *taps nose* --xoxo 06:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Against - I don't see any reason for him to become a Sysop. I'd imagine that he'd bring more problems to the table than solutions. - Jedaz - 04:18/5/11/2008
• Against - I'm not sure about you becoming a sysop. The A/VB, A/SD, and A/D issues you were involved with last month are still very fresh in my mind, but if you keep up your recently reformed behavior, I would be glad to vouch for you in another promotion bid. --ZsL 06:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  Heh, nah, don't plan on running again. --xoxo 06:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  I read your Vote ZS, but all I could hear was "Baa-aa-aa"--CyberRead240 06:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  Oh and in relation to your concern regarding the drama from last month i feel i've more than addressed my justification for everything i did there, see my response to boxy's vote and the question nubis asked under that for details. and can ppl please keep unrelated/semi-related chatter off this page? thanks.--xoxo 06:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  I understand your explanation, but I would also like more time to pass and see that you keep up your good behavior. So far, it looks like you will win this promotion, so another bid looks unlikely. :) --ZsL 07:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Vouch - He's been my wiki guru for the past 11 months. --Fiffy 08:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Against - A month ago, I prolly woulda given a vouch; you really seemed like you'd become a lot more level-headed. But some of the stuff that's crawled onto your user contribs in the past couple of weeks...? I've read your explanations above, but that kind of behavior still gives me pause. Zarrah. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 08:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• 'Against - Never heard of this guy, never saw anything. --ScouterTX 12:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Archived Promotions

• Complete list of Promotion Requests
• Successful Promotions Candidacies
• Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies
• Unaccepted Nominations
• Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies