UDWiki:Administration/Promotions

Shortcut:
A/PM

Candidates currently under community discussion

Rakuen

I'm awesome.

Also, cocks.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• NO and so soon after the last try this seems awfully like SPAMMING! --Honestmistake 23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  Is there any actual rule against posting promotion bids so soon after each other? No? HAHA nigger.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• NO Your 6 page edits since your last bid have done nothing to change my mind. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  What do my last 6 edits have to do with anything? Check my edits before my last bid, and you'll see the awesomeness that is me.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Spam --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  COOOOCKS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WOOT (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

• Against/No/Spam - I hope you get A/VB'd for this one.--SirArgo ^Talk 23:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  Me too, been trying for that 24 hour --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Spam - stop spamming the promotions page, woot. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 00:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  Fuck you.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - Call me an optimist. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  FUCK YEA SEAKING!--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against - If Iscariot says you're cool, that's a strike. _Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 04:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  Vendettas = uncool. --Pestolence^(talk) 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  ^That... also you're a nigger. (not you Pesto)--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  Maybe I am! --Pestolence^(talk) 01:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Vagainst. I mean against...--Nallan (Talk) 04:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  This soooo means you aren't J3D's sheep...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmk.--Nallan (Talk) 09:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Dupe - As Ross. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  File:Isee.jpg IMAGES LOLOL--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch one more says 2 weeks.--xoxo 06:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  FUCK YEA SEAKING!--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - I believe he has reformed himself since his last bid. --Cyberbob 06:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  I no rite? --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against/No/SpamAnd that is saying something coming from me. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 07:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  Nigger.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against - Too soon since the last one to be funny Rakky =[ D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  I heartily disconcur. --xoxo 05:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  k --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against - No. -- Cheese 10:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  fgt --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Space Bat - :'( --Janus ^talk 14:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  Fuck Space Bat. RIP Boxxy's new video </3 --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  This is the punishment for insulting the Space Bat. >:( --Janus ^talk 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  \o/ --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - He will be an asset to the community. --Pestolence^(talk) 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  I came--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against - Spam URANIUM BOMBS. --ZsL 15:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  8D --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Silvio Berlusconi - I have to agree with DDR here i'm afraid...But I like your style generally though, this wiki is getting a bit dull. Action time nao?--Thadeous Oakley 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Just say no.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 12:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• WTF CENTAUR - Cuz I can. --Haliman - Talk 01:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I call for an archival of this bid. Rak, please stop this. kk?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

He has two weeks for this bid, like it or not those are the rules. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, via Jerrel Yokotory's bid, precedent has been set showing that bids can be processed and archived before the two week mark. Normally, I'd let it run it's course, but as evident by the vandalism case against him, he's not ready for the job. If no one else gets to it first, I'm archiving this tomorrow, simple as that.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jerrel's bid did not meet criteria, this meets all criteria. If you won't allow Wan's bid to be archived after a week as per the precedent established by the Jerrel case, you certainly cannot archive it just because you dislike it and have made a decision without even considering the views of the community. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you delete it. A/VB#User:WOOT --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

archive not deletion. You can only delete vandalism edits. Feel free to do that but you'd leave the archive rather disjointed and confusing...--xoxo 11:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you delete, since it's vandalism. It doesn't get archived because it's not an actual bid. If WOOT cares enough, it can go in his userspace or on this talk page like the joke arbitration cases. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, but still technically a valid (if highly unqualified and unwanted by the community bid. Archival unless another sysops steps in.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Arbitration cases "for the lulz" have been removed before, sometimes to the talk page. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DanceDanceRevolution

I've been in the wiki for about 20 months and have involved myself in practically every part that the wiki has to offer at one time or another. If you know me, you may have seen me doing janitorial work, helping new users get onto their feet, doing some coding for users who request it, or busting around the Administration section. Whether it is this or reviewing policy/suggestion votes, monitoring troublesome edits or categorising images, I've always liked to keep myself involved in the wiki. About the only thing I've never had the pleasure of doing is an arbitration case. Bar a 3 month gap during Christmas 08, I have never had inactivity issues.

Why would I like to be a sysop? I would really like to be able to take on the added responsibility that it entails. I want to offer myself to the community just that bit more, and hopefully help them have a sysop on the UDWiki at all times of the day, for whenever things get hairy. It would also help in terms of my duties too. For example, yesterday morning I moved every single pro-survivor group on the wiki from Category:Human Groups to Category:Survivor Groups, I had to wait for a sysop to come on and move the protected groups and the category content for the task to be complete. It added more tasks onto another user, and despite the fact I shifted 1300+ pages in a few hours, it just made the process seem much longer than was necessary. Such access would enable me to complete those odd tasks much more efficiently, as well as help with those administration queues.

Everyone loves their sysop with a reasonable amount of experience, and I've been around the Administration pages for a while now and know the procedures and practices that are necessary. I am also not afraid of drama when its unavoidable. Admittedley, I tread lightly, but I'm still there.

I guess I now leave my evaluation at your mercy. If you have any questions about who I am, what I've done on the Wiki or issues about my candicacy, feel free to ask here or on my talk page. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against - I figured this was coming when I saw all teh gud werk you were doing over the last day or two. --Cyberbob 08:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• You've been helpful with Category:Human Groups (let it die in a fire,) and I've seen you do a few other wikignome things around the place. That said, you've been involved in needless drama to keep a questionable redirect (which was later turned into a scheduled deletion.) Not to mention this questionable edit. That said, I'm not going to lynch you over stuff that happened nearly six months ago now. However, the main reason I'm going to have to abstain is because this is a bit like SA's first bid - you've only recently returned from activity after a very long hiatus, and it's hard to be sure if you'll keep up those levels of activity, or if it's just a thing you are doing in passing before going inactive again. I've spoken to you on IRC, and you seem like a decent guy, but I would really like to see you around the wiki. Leave it a few months, help out like you are now, and I'll reconsider my position. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and you wouldn't be the only Australian sysop (although Boxy's on a bit later then me usually.) Linkthewindow  Talk  09:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Six months is a long time, and I still maintain that I have no relation with the attitude that was expressed in that one day, which even then was a one-off. I could clutch at straws and claim the entire thing blew into a 4 hour edit-war affair exactly because there was no sysop at hand to stop the edit war, but that would be alleviating responsibility for the conflict. Hell, J3D was the main player in the entire thing, and he went for sysop not long after an got it. Then again, I probably shouldn't use that to defend my case here xD D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • You are ever so slightly full of shit. You and Nick were always the secondary guys but that's because you were quite happy to be sycophants; not out of any lingering guilt or whatever you might have had. Also your shit has been going on for far more than that "one day" and pretty much everyone that can read knows it. --Cyberbob 14:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against what link said but against.----Sexualharrison 12:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - By going on a long hiatus, it really shows me that this user wanted to separate the old him, from the new him. Admittedly, when I used to lurk around a but, DanceDanceRevolution used to be very active at the same time as me. Most of the time he was constructive and I both enjoyed and respected his opinion. He gave off the aura as someone who knew what they were doing, and I think that is very important to new users in particular. If there were more people like him around, I would have joined a lot earlier, and not been so put off by the constant drama and power struggles. I did see him get caught up in some drama with other users, but he was only ever secondary, and most of the time I took it as some tongue in cheek humour. Overall, I think that by coming back with a bang, DanceDanceRevolution is showing the community that he wants to be here, and he wants to be ridden of his past dramas. An extended hiatus is always a good opportunity to better yourself, and reflect on how you can better serve the community. Is that good enough Nubis? haha.--DiscoInferno 14:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk page --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against - Pfff.--ScouterTX 14:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Good argument. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Cry moar.--ScouterTX 19:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Questions: You are a user who has shown a good deal of immaturity in the past and often court drama (esp in A/VB) so my big questions are...

1. Which of the new buttons that come with sysophood do you think you will use most and why?
2. Are there any area's you intend to shy away from?
3. What recent actions do you think might give cause to trust (or distrust) your motives and ability?

At the moment I am leaning towards abstaining but your answers here could easily sway me so please do try to answer.--Honestmistake 16:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

1.I would find most use with the janitorial buttons like protections and move requests, I commonly find quite a bit of sysop janitorial work that I've been wanting to add onto my daily roster for a while now.

2.I intend on addressing all aspects of being a sysop, however in terms of (what I assume you are insinuating) VB and especially Misconduct, I intend on being careful and not going into the sections with guns blazing. If someone is promoted to sysop they are expected to involve themselves in those areas when needed and if I were needed I would, by all means, do my best, but I wouldn't be pulling a coup anytime soon.

3. Since I came back from a gap, I've been doing janitorial work around the place, and have been offering to help users when coding or work is needed. I'm helping the rejuvenation of the Community Portal (again) and three days ago I made about 1,300 edits in the space of a few hours in order to move Category:Human Groups, as mentioned above. This is generally what I have done since I came back, and I intend on keeping it up. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch Good enough for me. While you can still be a little abrasive that doesn't stop Nubis doing a decent job and I have noticed a lot of very constructive work from you recently. The fact that it will piss bob off is really just icing on the cake.--Honestmistake 08:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk page --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain - He may be ready, but he has only just returned. --Haliman - Talk 16:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - most of what i have seen of DDR is negative. he is rude when it comes to votes on suggestions and other users. --Lt.G Deathnut | TheStayPuftMan 17:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - Great guy and he would have a vouch from me in a heartbeat, but mild concern over him coming off a haitus. Perhaps after he's been active in full swing again, but not now. --Gus Thomas^SpartaZHU 20:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - As I did with Hagnat when he showed up last time from his hiatus. You need to log more time here and prove that you're going to be staying and that you will be an active sysop.--SirArgo ^Talk 20:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - Don't know you well enough. --Janus ^talk 21:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Just cause J3D can do it, don't mean you can...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - You have been making a lot of good contributions lately, but you were absent for several consecutive months after some bad drama. I'd like to see a longer continuation of your current - and great - behavior before I can vouch. --ZsL 04:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - You have been here only 11 days after returning. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Although I have no knowledge of your prior behavior which has been referred to by several people here, the fact that it has come up is concerning. I think I would need to wait a bit as you've just returned from an absence. Perhaps a couple months from now I will have a better idea of your disposition.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 11:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - As Hal - D.E.ATalk 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - --– Nubis ^NWO 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - As Midianian. I would go for Abort.--Thadeous Oakley 13:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Quoting,"Most of the time he was constructive and I both enjoyed and respected his opinion. He gave off the aura as someone who knew what they were doing, and I think that is very important to new users in particular. " and "I want to offer myself to the community just that bit more, and hopefully help them have a sysop on the UDWiki at all times of the day, for whenever things get hairy. It would also help in terms of my duties too." that! --Obi ^{+ Talk!|TZH|MDK} 21:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - i think he's a good candidate for the job, and while i know being here for 50 more days won't change anything about him i can appreciate people being cautious vouching someone who's just shown up from a break.--xoxo 11:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Coz he beat me at DDR (which makes just about anyone eligible in my books).--Nallan (Talk) 04:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - I've been away 4 a few months....but I have seen him plenty of times. --Angusburger 06:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - You're nice guy but I think you need a bit more experience helping out in adminy type stuff before you get promoted. Take a month, maybe 6 weeks and really get stuck into things. -- Cheese 10:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Vouch - I've seen the good works of this person. They are worthy. --Pyrranha 22:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently Concluded Bids

Wan Yao

I would like to nominate Wan Yao. He has always been very active on the wiki and is one of those people that you think already is a sysop. He was instrumental in negotiating a fair NPOV version of the Dunell Hills page between DHPD and the Dead. That right there should qualify him for sainthood. There is no section of the wiki that he hasn't been active on and his contributions are always well thought out.

One of the "concerns" about sysopshipness is periods of inactivity. But I say that even if there is a gap in his contributions that he has been on the wiki for years. I think it is much better to have a strong and consistent sysop that might go MIA for a week or two than to have one that is on all the time and never gets involved in "drama" or controversy.

I don't really know what to say about nominating Wan because everyone on here should be familiar with him. I just hope that he would accept the nomination. But if I need to I can go into a Sham Wow like spiel about how awesome he is. Does this count as a sysop vouch or do we have to wait for another one? --– Nubis ^NWO 07:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The return of Wan Yao

I dunno if this is too late at this point. :( I was offline for a while due to technical problems with my telco, then in addition to IRL, I got addicted a new game I downloaded... ;P Anyway... Thanks, nubis, for the nomination... I do accept, if it's not too late.

I've skimmed the comments, and I'll take a look at them soon, and reply -- individually, where appropriate, or generally up here. But I'll start with the "inactivity" issue... No, I have not been as active as I once was in-game or in-wiki or even in the meta of late. And I don't expect to ever go back to the manic levels of involvement some of you once knew from me. This is a disadvantage in a way, because I may lose touch with certain things... On the other hand, I think it's actually a GOOD thing insofar as it has the effect of keeping me distant from drama.

Beyond that, though sometimes I make errors of judgement or in "policy", I think these tend to be minor. You can disagree if you wish, so be it... As others have pointed out, I do think I understand policy as well as most anyone else, and contrary to the comments of some of the (yup) trenchcoaters, the last thing I would do is abuse my powers, sheeesh...

That's all, for the moment. --WanYao 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is too late; the two weeks from when the bid was put forward have passed. Suicidal and Boxy are just being lazy >_>

Besides which, even if it wasn't too late I really don't think the wiki needs yet another basically-inactive sysop, a la Thari and Swiers. Also nice labelling everyone who voted Against with the trenchcoater brush. --Cyberbob 07:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the two weeks seems to be from the time that they satisfy the criteria for being moved down to under community discussion, and that starts after they accept the nomination. True, this perhaps should have been removed before now due to the lack of an acceptance from Wan, but seeing as he's accepted now, let it go the course (2 weeks from acceptance). Without an increase in activity he wont be promoted, and such a long absence will not benefit his case, so he has a bit of ground to make up now -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:11 9 March 2009 (BST)

The time limit for demotion for being inactive is 4 months without an edit (not SYSOP edit just any edit). If your complaint is about him being inactive then get that policy changed first. It's hardly fair to say that before you get promoted you have to be constantly editing yet once you are a sysop you can slack off for 4 months without a worry. Once again, I would rather have someone on the Admin pages that makes good decisions with some gaps in activity than people on there constantly that make very poor decisions.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I accept his reason for being unavailable (tech/telco problems), but while we don't demote sysops until they become very inactive, I think it's quite acceptable to require candidates for promotion to be active enough during their promotion to allow for "cross examination", at the very least -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:52 10 March 2009 (BST)

ITT the wiki is caving in because a user who has community support might possibly be given a day leeway. This is a dumb argument and would be a stupid reason to deny the bid in and of itself.--Karek^maps?! 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be more a problem that he could miss this for so long. No one expects the Sysops to live on line but there seems little point promoting Wan just so he can wave the title around when he is online. An active Wan deserves the promotion but the community simply does not need another semi-inactive sysop, especially one so likely to get involved in contentious issues when he is here.--Honestmistake 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's fair enough that I haven't been active lately. And atm I am kinda busy IRL, so I might not end up being all that active in the near future, either. It's legit to reject this bid on that account, and have me reapply when and if I become more involved in the community again. --WanYao 11:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Who knows, by then you might have even grown out of your weird fascination with ellipses. --Cyberbob 11:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too, I never understood it though. If you decline the nomination instead, it won't really hurt you in the long run, and you could just run on your own when you feel ready. Nothing wrong with starting a bid on your own you know. :D --Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 13:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Making your own bid? Heresy!-- Adward  22:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

---

• Vouch - Didn't think he wants this, however. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this is going to have to become an abstain, for a few reasons, most notably his lack of recent activity (to be fair, if he's sick or something, I'll strike that bit,) and that he isn't very involved in the maintenance parts of the wiki. That said, he would make a great "moderator" sysop, but he doesn't seem to be active. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Reconsidering vote, due to the return of Wan. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

      coughnotvote D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

      I knew that, it's just easier to say vote :p Linkthewindow  Talk  11:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

      • Ether way, Weak Vouch it is. Although he's a tad inactive, he still makes good decisions. In the end, that's what counts. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Bid fails criteria four, as it did last time when Wan declined to stand. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Funny... b/c I actually said to Karek just a couple of days ago, after being asked a few times, "Ok, fine, I'll run for sysop...." - Wan Yao--– Nubis ^NWO 16:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Said 10 days ago. Wan has edited since then. He hasn't put up his own bid.... Until he posts here and states to the contrary, this is a Criteria 4 and you know it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Let's see, he makes a comment saying that he would run for sysop so we should automatically assume that he doesn't want to be a sysop.?.? BRILLIANT! With your clear reasoning and assumption of good faith I can see why you are a sysop ... oh, wai- And did you miss the point of the comment where the "gaps" in contributions were a concern? That means he won't be on here every day. Nice try. I was wondering what you would use to be against someone that deserves it as much as Wan. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Erm, come on. I expressed my interest in the position, but wasn't active for a while. And, there is no rule saying someone else can't nominate you. In fact, AFAIK it's kind of considered bad form to nominate yourself, which is why I didn't do it last month. --WanYao 17:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  It has never been considered poor form to nominate yourself. Your inactivity served to demonstrate a flaw in the sysop team, that of favourable bias towards those they like. This case should have been archived after a week of you not accepting and a new bid brought up when you'd returned. I pointed this out multiple times and was ignored even though the precedent was set by the person who nominated you. The fact that you chose to allow this bias to continue by accepting this bid that should have been archived highlights to me that you are happy to serve as a sysop that allows different rules for different users. This is unacceptable. My against now stands, but with the concrete reason I never thought would materialised when I originally casted it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  You really are talking out of your ass there (well, except for the self-nomination thing). I hate to repeat myself, so I'll just post this link. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against - Airhead. --Cyberbob 08:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - At this point there is no one I would vouch for more strongly. I talked to him about this before and he said he would accept a bid if nominated, so as always Iscariot is just talking out his ass. --Karek^maps?! 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Anyone who knows who Randy "The Ram" is.. deserves to be sysop--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 09:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Good guy, he deserves this. --D.E.ATalk 10:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Strongly. Always seems to talk shit that makes no sense.--DiscoInferno 10:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Who the fuck are you ? --– Nubis ^NWO 16:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  My question exactly.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  herp derp only wiki superstars get to be against promotion bids amirite guys? --Cyberbob 20:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, Bob. It has nothing to do with the fact that I checked his contributions and mainly see promotion votes and ALIM comments and wonder where he is getting this wealth of information on Wan. Because if he has such insight gained in the week he has been on this wiki then he has much to teach us.--– Nubis ^NWO 00:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  Allow me to introduce you to the concept of lurking. --Cyberbob 05:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  Allow me to introduce the concept of Tits or GTFO. No, wait a minute. I'll get back to you on that.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  I have been looking around on this wiki for a while, waiting for my exams to end before I actually got involved, as I feared that, like other wikis and forums, it would take up too much of my time if I actively contributed. I joined up after my yearly exams were over, but that doesn't mean I haven't been reading and watching for a lot longer. What does it matter what my contributions are anyway?--DiscoInferno 01:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  What it matters is exactly what I said about it. Your comment said nothing about how long you have been on the wiki lurking or otherwise. It said nothing about a specific event or comment from Wan. Your contributions show nothing that suggests an encounter with him. So either he made that much of an impression on you through something specific (which might be important for other people to know about since it seems to be a big enough deal that it made up your mind) or you are just a random asshole that feels the need to bitch about something. When I am against a candidate and strongly as you were, I post very specific reasons and explanations. It just sort of seems like the smart thing to do.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  Well considering this is not a vote, I guess the people in power would make the same assumption as you, and would render my words useless anyway.--DiscoInferno 09:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  I lurked here for a good five or six months before I actually joined. Lurking is pretty common thing, and I encourage it.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 11:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  You should link to ALiM when you write it, so people can easily find it from any page.--xoxo 08:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  If its me that was directed at, then no. If its the other guy...--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 10:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  Right, because everyone needs to read unfunny penis jokes. That's absolutely what the wiki needs. --Cyberbob 08:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch As the one who nominated him earlier...I hope he reconsiders and joins the team. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 11:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Seems like a guy whose opinion would help in defusing the minefield that is A/VB and A/M. --  RoosterDragon  13:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Power corrupts people.--ScouterTX 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  So who should it be given to?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  THE PEOPLE! Seriously, Wan is okay, but is this really necessary? I think we have enough "super-important (and self-important)" sysops etc. here --ScouterTX 05:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - Yep.-- Adward  16:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - Until he accepts the bid here. --Pestolence^(talk) 17:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Against - Due to his lack of activity (no edits since February 15th). If he comes back active, I'll gladly change my vote back. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Seems up to the job to me. --Papa Moloch 18:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - As Eddie. --Haliman - Talk 19:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against - I don't see him on very often anymore and I don't see him ever do anything really sysop like. He's a good guy, but I don't think he needs sysop powers.--SirArgo ^Talk 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Hopefully he'll accept this. Like SA, Wan is one of those people who has deserved a promotion for a long time now. -- Cheese 19:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Seems like he'd get good janitor-like work done, but I'm worried about him when it comes to A/VB and A/A. Edit: Seems he's gonna win, thus changed NIGGER to against for lulz --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 20:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  It's not a vote you unlulzy faggot. ;) --Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 23:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  balls, fixed--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 23:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - Despite the fact that I hate the guy I do agree with WOOT in that he would get shit done. If he abused A/VB, there is always A/M.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - now, put the gold in the basket. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - I think he'd make a pretty good sysop.--'BP^Tmz 22:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain he gets on my nerves.----Sexualharrison 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Quite a character, and a good addition to the team. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - A good guy, he's deserved this for a long time.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  I'm a good guy too, vouch me too pl0x?--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  General is holding his vote on you until the last minute when he can swoop in dramatically like and vote. WHOOOOSH! Ninja vote, thx. I'd do the same, but it would only be lame and I'd screw it up somehow. --– Nubis ^NWO 00:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  I can't really "vote" on these any more. I already miss it! Why couldn't you be moar likeable Nubis? Why?!?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  Never stopped boxy from voting. I can't be more likeable because 1 I am a goon and 2 I am an asshole (see above). Sorry.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Against A good guy who is not afraid of drama and is normally pretty balanced in his dealings. I think he would probably make a decent SYSOP but its well over a week now and he still hasn't responded so I have changed my vote... If he becomes active again though I would encourage him to go for it in the future.--Honestmistake 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• vouch Does good work, and will make good use of sysop powers Asheets 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against. Come over here and convince me Wan.--xoxo 07:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against If a man acts like authority, but is not authority, you do not hand him a gun; you charge him with impersonation. --Pyrranha 00:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Despite past troubles, I can't look past that Wan has done plenty of good for the wiki as a whole, and believe that he would be a decent sysop, should he wish it. --Private Mark 01:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - As many others, a good election for sysop. :) --LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 04:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch Im all for him ive seen him in game and ive seen him doing work on the wiki--Officer tommy 22:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against This guy is a douchebag. Nuff said Ioncannon11 20:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  Says the trenchie. The man 15:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - This guy is enthusiastic and has been very balanced in his enforcement of the NPOV rule on several pages. --FLZombie 03:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain – Candidate has not accepted nomination. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Quite possibly one of the best choices for a promotion. The man 15:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Wan Yao has always seemed a solid guy to me and deserves this --The Cop 22:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - Until Wan confirms he will accept the nomination. _■^■ 02:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Doesn't appear to be active. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - You haven't been really active lately, and haven't accepted the nomination yet. --ZsL 11:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch- Yay! --dgw 13:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch- As Ioncannon11. It's so necessary. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch- As Haliman, a very capable, pragmatic individual who tries to stay out of the stupid bs.--Garviel Loken^{No Pity! No Remorse! No Fear! Talk}22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Si. --Janus ^talk 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - At best he's biased. At worst, he's a troll. Plus, he's a douchebag.--Zombie Lord 07:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Come back when you have the time, there's no rush. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against - I'm pretty sure that being a SysOp requires a sunnier disposition than the one WanYao has. Plus, from what I can see SysOps ofen deal with the errors of WikiNewbs, and this would probably cause WanYao no end of grief. Also, as Zombie Lord. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 02:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  grimgrimgrimgrimgrimgrim. and like 10 others.--xoxo 11:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  yupyupyupyupyup grim is definitely the right person to be using as an example of a good sysop yessir --Cyberbob 11:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  quote me the bit where blake mentioned good sysops again, i missed that bit.--xoxo 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  He's saying that sysops need to have a sunny disposition. You gave an example of a sysop that didn't who also happened to be a complete spaz. not saying you aren't on the right track but you might've found someone else to mention by name instead --Cyberbob 06:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  I just disagree with the statement that sysops need a sunny disposition at all. Grim was good for this place. I miss him :( --xoxo 06:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  stockholm syndrome itt --Cyberbob 06:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  i don't deny it. although i assure you i'd never miss boxy.--xoxo 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• From what I remember, this guy was pretty helpful and eager to please. If he's still the same, he'd make a good Sysop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dux Ducis (talk • contribs) 10:05, 21 March 2009.

Month long promotion bid

It's rocking my socks. Can this end now? Please? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll rule on this bid unless I hear back from SA in the next day or so. I've contacted him via his talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:03 24 March 2009 (BST)

Ah hell, I'll rule now. Wanyao, as good as you may be able to do or not do the job, your inactivity is a problem. You haven't made any edits since the tenth, and I believe, along with Boxy, that it's in our best interests that you reapply when you've been more active.

Bid Failed, archive in a couple days plz.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is beautiful coming from the Crats that let Karek's request for demotion sit for a week. I'm so glad that the line is being drawn on inactivity! --– Nubis ^NWO 22:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Boxy has a 7 day gap from March 10th to March 17th and SA has a 12 day gap from March 12th to March 24th. Way to lead by example!--– Nubis ^NWO 22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 7 and 12 days are perfectly comparable with ~40 days which were interrupted only to accept and comment on the nomination and to make one comment on another nomination. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The magic number is 4 months. 40 days < 4 months. Once again, why is the standard once you get the position less than the criteria to get the position in the first place? Do you have a witty and sarcastic explanation for that? --– Nubis ^NWO 22:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fuck yeah I do! :D. It's called "People throw a fit whenever we try to make more stricter requirements on keeping sysops status, because four months is over kill"--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

i do, and here it is --Cyberbob 22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply because people see demotion (even if it's only for inactivity) much more negatively than a rejected promotion bid (especially if it was only rejected for inactivity). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 23:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Because people who are trying to make up their mind as to whether to support this bid should be able to watch him in action. If he's not here for basically the whole bid (one that went twice as long as normal!), then users who don't constantly take note of the inter-personal interactions on the wiki wont be able to get a read on his personality, except via isolated incidents in his contributions history. A promotions bid is interactive. Wan also signaled that he would be less active, than he has been, in the future, and we shouldn't promote him without knowing what level of a comeback he will make, or if he drops right out (as plenty have before) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:59 25 March 2009 (BST)

Hay, at least I said wai I wuz gone. That's why we have two 'crats, so one can take a quick break for RL stuff and not have everyone stranded with lack of 'crat. It's not my fault boxy picked a bad time to leave too! Shame on him! :D --Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Super Nweb

Unsuccessful -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:50 24 March 2009 (BST)

Archived Promotions

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