UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions

Archive

• Archive1 - ??? - Jan 2007
• Archive2 - Feb - Oct 2007
• Archive3 - Oct 2007 - Apr 2008

Discussion

Tallies

I think we should agree not to post those running tallies, given that sysop promotions are not votes, but rather requests for users opinions/reasons for support or not. The tallies give the impression that it's a vote -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:23 24 July 2008 (BST)

Not to mention that they are damn annoying.--Karek^maps?! 10:26, 24 July 2008 (BST)

agreed. although it means i have nowhere to use my new found skill of 5 tildes....--xoxo 10:28, 24 July 2008 (BST)

I agree aswell. It should be done asap... DanceDanceRevolution 13:29, 24 July 2008 (BST)

OK, I'm moving the tally from the current bid here -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:11 26 July 2008 (BST)

The bid relevant portion has been moved to the bid archive.--Karek^maps?! 02:55, 31 July 2008 (BST)

Individual Pages per Promotion

Wouldnt it be better to deal with each promotion bid in an individual page, like we discuss new policies and arbitration cases on their own pages ? The promotion are gonna to be archived in an individual page in the end, and that way we can keep any discussion related to that case in it's own talk page. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:20, 22 April 2008 (BST)

As long as they all link from the current page in the same manner as suggestions do then it sounds like a good idea to me. It would keep things neater, thing is though is it worth making a change for something that isn't exactly an everyday event? --Honestmistake 14:59, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I was thinking about something like what i made in the arbitration page. The user requesting a promotion uses a template stuff, with a link to it's bid, the date he asked for the promotion and when it's supposed to be over (14 days since its beginning) and the status of the bid (open, succesful, unsuccesful, withdraw, etc)... then in the individual page we could have something like in the suggestions, with a place reserved for the user to state his reasons to be promoted, a place for people to vouch him, and a section explaining how promotion works (the thing about it not being a vote, but a discussion on the merits of a user to be promoted) and the duties of a sysop. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:07, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I'd say it can't hurt to try it out. Makes the page less spammy with multiple bids.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 15:59, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Given that there are usually only a handful of promotions at a time, is this necessary? Still, having separate promotion pages would entail separate promotion talk pages, which is where the real editing mess is. Also, this would definitely make archiving easier. --Kid sinister 16:35, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Yeah, kid sinister has the right idea: this isn't so much good because it splits up the main page but for splitting up the talk page. Grarr 17:44, 22 April 2008 (BST)

No, the Arbitration system sucks for ease of following now.--Karek^maps?! 20:12, 22 April 2008 (BST)

we can see how this works out next time someone request a promotion... this will help a lot on the rare occasions where more than one user asks for a promotion... it was a pain to follow the promotion bids from akule and axe, imho. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:33, 23 April 2008 (BST)

And if you're only following one then it's much less annoying, too. Grarr 17:31, 23 April 2008 (BST)

Yes, I think it would be easier that way. --Pdeq^Talk* 03:42, 24 April 2008 (BST)

No. Whilst I hated to go through all the scrolling of unnecessary comments at A/A in the past, votes on the Promotion sections are much more meaningful and altogether have a more substantial "real content per line" ratio, thus making having to browse through more pages in order to get to vote more of a bother than an actual improvement. This, combined with the fact that most Promotion requests are placed one at a time, will increase instead of reducing the actual scrolling per vote one wants to place. --Starplatinum 06:16, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Speaking of streamlining promotion bids, was there ever a particular reason why there weren't defined sections for vouches, againsts, and abstains/questions? It would seem easier to take tallies that way. I just never recalled it ever being done that way, tis why I ask.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 11:14, 24 April 2008 (BST)

I presume it's something to do with Promotions not being a vote, which results in tallies being somewhat irrelevant. Or then it's just plain laziness. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:26, 24 April 2008 (BST)

The first reason, because it's not a vote. After the first 3 vouches it's purely about the opinions of people. A strong opinion in favor or against from an active user counts for more then a weak vouch or against by an inactive user. It's not digital, it's gradual. To sort them would introduce a more firm diversion between for and agianst then there usually is.-- Vista  +1  11:29, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Post implementation

I'm sorry but, I already hate this system with a passion. It's done nothing but complicate things for everyone involved and actually goes so far as to remove the rules and guidelines as for what to look for in a candidate and how to comment.--Karek^maps?! 15:09, 29 April 2008 (BST)

d'uh, then be bold and add them instead of complaining. They are already in a template. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:11, 29 April 2008 (BST)

d'uh, if that was the only problem that probably would have been what I did. This system inconveniences everyone for the sake of "neatness" when the previous system has worked out fine.--Karek^maps?! 15:18, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Now I've got to add another page to my watchlist every time someone puts themself forward? Na, when it's such an underused page as promotions, it's not worth the effort. It's just as easy to archive the bid to a separate page after the bid is finished as it is to do it at the begining -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:53 29 April 2008 (BST)

Ditto. --Starplatinum 19:25, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Please don't make individual pages for promotions in the future -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:46 17 May 2008 (BST)

Agree. This was annoying. I didnt even find out suicidal angel had replied to me until 5 minutes ago (A bit late for a further reply methinks), when i have both promotions and this talk page on my watch list. Keep em here. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:59, 17 May 2008 (BST)

As the box. I hated having to go to the promo page, and then clicking on another link (with dead internets might I add) just to see how my bid goes. And really Grim? I just thought you were too busy to reply to me. Thats sad. Continue it again some other time?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:14, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Well, we'd never find it difficult without trying. I kind of agree with all that has been said about this, and don't further support this. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:04, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Random changing of promotions

I entirely missed the discussion on this, where was it?

You appear to have removed the ability for one user to nominate another one, haven't you? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I still see this "Note that if a person is nominated by another user, the candidate in question should note their acceptance of the nomination". Is that what you're talking about?--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was writting this on the guidelines talk page, but i guess its better in here.

I have made these changes to the guidelines (see what changed here) to prevent cases such as lithedarkangel's promotion and to prevent a user from spamming the promotion pages and wiki news with nominations to himself or users who are not interested in the task. A user can still be nominated by others, but the nominating user must gather the 3 vouches before making the nomination here.

The guidelines already said that a user should gather the vouches before moving his candidacy into community discussion. The changes made simply tell them to do so outside this page, since gathering the vouches HERE is already having a nomination under community discussion. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should have consulted others before changing it?--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that doesn't entirely make sense. You keep the clause about wanting to be a sysop, yet the only people who can post a promotion bid now ARE those who want to be a sop.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

it does make sense: you gather the vouches for a user, ask if he is interested, and then post the nomination here. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You can compare this with how suggestions are made in Dev Suggestions before hitting the main page. Its to work on it and see if there is a chance of it actually be approved. And since this are only guidelines, you are not supposed to follow it by the letter and you can simply ignore the entire thing. How many times must i repeat myself about this ? --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense. "Desire to become a System Operator. We define this simply as indicating in the candidate's request their desire for the position (Note that if a person is nominated by another user, the candidate in question should note their acceptance of the nomination)." By implementing a rule change that they must seek out votes and then personally apply on promotions for the position, the entire quoted section is pointless. The process itself is the desire to become a sop. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

which "rule" are you talking about? oic, you are talking about a guideline... which can be IGNORED --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to everyone who's had an escalation for breaking point 10 of the suggestions guidelines. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

guidelines. sorry. Have we got any previous issues with candidates being refused promotion for not following the guidelines?Is the whole self nomination thing even needed? Looking back we've only had 5 candidates in 4 years refuse nomination.... --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

let me try to answer your question, not locking like an ass now. User A can gather vouches for User B in a talk page (either User A or User B talk page), ask User B if he is interested, and when he says he is, User A can nominate the user. Yes, it lacks the element of surprise the current one has, but this atleast spares the community from having to discuss on unaccepted nominations or candidacies that will undoubtedly fail. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 01:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it back. This should've been discussed first. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another attempt by hagnat to stealth rule this wiki. There is no significant spam problem through the promotions system. As hagnat points out these are simply guidelines and may be changed by any user. Given that no attempt at consultation was made with the wider community, if there is consensus from at least one other user I will revert his changes until the appropriate discussions have been made. EDIT: Mid beat me to it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'm going to revert all of hag's changes for now. Lets get some input from everyone else, yeah? EDIT: Mid got it. And then Iscariot edit conflicted me. Damn you both! :) --Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain logic to Hagnat's idea. However, I think he takes it too far. I suggest something very simple. A seperate header for seeking nominations. Once you get three, then voting commences automatically. The vouches, however, are counted as FOR votes normally, of course. I'd suggest 48 hours to collect three vouches. Voting per se could still start before those vouches are received, but if after 48 hours they're not received, it's archived as failed. --WanYao 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats exactly what i was trying to prevent: HAVING failed nominations. Even if you limited this nomination period to 1 hour it would still be enough time to create a shitload of unneeded drama. A user should only run for sysop when he had a slight chance of getting promoted. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines overhaul

Proposed changes:

1. Increasing the minimum required time active on the UD Wiki to be 3 (I'd like 4) months, from 2 months
2. Increasing the minimum number of edits to 1,500, from 500
3. Increase the number of minimum edits of the first 3 users vouching to 500 each
4. Some sort of Nomination system.

Discuss.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 19:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User the + button next time you create a new header, you editing conflicted bastard. I think only the minimum time should be incread (3 is more than enough), and the changes i made, of course. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with changes 1, 2 and 3. 4 is completely unneeded, Hagnat's point about news spam is completely strawman, most of the unaccepted ones don't even land on there, mine didn't, and it shouldn't be put up there until the three vouches are received. The main problem with Hagnat's bad faith stealth changes is the change that definitively requires support from a current sysop. It is not required by the current guidelines, the notion of the promotions system is support from the community in general, not the exercising of some 'Old Boys' Club'. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever read page rules before commenting on them? You've been required to get a sysop vouch for a very very long time now and it's probably the easiest thing to do with Conndraka and Hagnat wandering about. The only person that couldn't get one is you or a frequent vandal, for the same reason, both have shown they'll abuse the ability. --Karek^maps?! 20:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I'm thinking I read them better than you. You are referring to this section:"We define this as a minimum of three other users (preferably users with at least 200 edits under their name and at least one System Operator)" emphasis mine. Preferably is a qualifier for that entire sentence, meaning that it is preferred that the three users have at least 200 edits and it is preferred that one of them be a sysop. It is not a requirement. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Come back when a user is promoted without a sysop vouch. You can't and won't because it will never happen. Keep thinking you're being clever by arguing that preferably makes it any less of a real requirement that is being made clear to the users before the bid takes place, I'm just gonna be over here laughing at your belief that you're right in any way. --Karek^maps?! 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I do so enjoy it when you tell the truth Karek. What he's saying to all our viewers out there, is it doesn't matter how well liked you are by the entire community, if a group of less than 10 individuals doesn't like you, you can't gain promotion on this wiki. Entrenched individuals deciding things against community consensus, since 2005. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If a user is liked by the entire communitiy, chances are high that he will be liked by someone in the admin staff too. Like karek said, there will always be an inclusionist like conn or myself around. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 21:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To all our viewers out there what Iscariot is really saying here is that he thinks he is actually liked by the community no matter how many times people tell him he is an unwanted troll because if he does ever get a bid up he's gonna beg in IRC for votes, which will probably end up changed when someone actually shows them the kinda shit he pulls on a regular basis here. It's the same reason why he'll beg users to make him a bid but won't let users that aren't omg popular do it, he craves approval and has deluded himself into thinking he actually has it from anyone here.

TL:DR? If you're approved of by the community you will get a sysop vouch, if you're not approved of by the 'crats you don't stand a chance anyway and they happen to actually be sysops. Iscariot be trollin'.--Karek^maps?! 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the position one is applying for is a sysop, so it's not completely unfounded for people who are sysops and thus have experience in the matter to require some support from them. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1) 4 months would be OK with me. 2) No problem. 3) I'd prefer if the whole "still requiring vouches" phase was removed. 4) What? Why? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not agreeing with is but, it would be a way to show the required trust in the community, or at least from part of the community no matter how small. I don't think it's needed though, all it will prevent is new users making bids. --Karek^maps?! 20:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1's OK with me, and 2's not bad, although 1,000 edits seems a bit more reasonable. I don't see why 3 or 4 are needed, though. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that point 4 was in response to Hagnat wanting some sort of nomination system in here, not that I want it. I don't, I like how it works now.

Point three though, would help keep some group member from nominating someone, and then more of the group vouching to get him under com. review, meaning we have to go through the whole charade when there really is no point. It's not definite, it was just one of the original ideas me and Dux had.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Promotion Guidelines Overhaul

Now there's a policy that failed because not enough people voted on it, if ever I saw one. BArring the questions, I think the numbers are a good example.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, we hashed it out for awhile on the talk page of it. :) --Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Karek's Pettiness and Incorrectness

Karek has decided to revert my rightful edit to the page. As is typical with Karek he attempts to browbeat other users with a facetious and patently wrong comment.

And I quote from the guidelines that are freely available at the top of the page: "Users who wish to request System Operator status (and users who wish to nominate other users for System Operator status) should note that before they can be considered the following guidelines should be met by the candidate:

Once the candidate satisfies these guidelines, the user is then subject to a community discussion. All users are asked to comment on the candidate in question, ask questions of the candidate, and discuss the candidate's suitability for becoming a System Operator. This is not a vote. It is instead merely a request for comments from the wiki community. This will continue for two weeks, as all users get a chance to air their opinions on the candidate.

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. "

Emphasis mine.

Wan's bid clearly does not meet criteria four, he has not posted here and no edit has been linked where he asserts this, therefore this bid is not yet subject to community discussion and should remain in the section I have again returned it to until this condition has been satisfied or until seven days has passed, at which time it can be archived as per Nubis' precedent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

you forgot to quote hagnat from his rewriting of the guiudelines when he said they were just guidelines and could be ignored.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wan clearly has at least a small measure of desire to become a sysop. However, to avoid the needless drama over something like this, he needs to post here officially.-- Adward  22:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree please for the love of everything holy, get Wan to post here. The last thing we need is yet another VB war between sysops and Iscariot. This entire thing can be avoided if WAn will just post something.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My bid was up for days before i even noticed, Wan is not as active as he once was but has vlearly stated that he would consider running.... at the end of the day he can not be promoted against his wishes but you do have a point in that he really should have noticed by now!--Honestmistake 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Kindly note this now makes two trusted users that have reverted correct edits because it suits them. Rules for everyone else, and not for them. If Jerrel Yokotory had continually moved his promotion bid into that section they'd have escalated him, however different matter when it's them breaching the basic rules we all are supposed to obey to ensure fair process. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. -- Cheese 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn trusted users anyway...--SirArgo ^Talk 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot, I know what the guidelines say, and I believe guidelines should be followed pretty straight forwards sometimes (Keyword being sometimes. :D), but all in all, this doesn't matter too much. I promise he will not be promoted unless he states on the promotion page or it's talk that he clearly wants the position. Fair enough?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 23:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a simple fact that if Jerrel Yokotory moved his promotion to the under community discussion section without fulfilling the criteria, both of the aforementioned users would have moved it back to the correct section. If Jerrel had then put it back in the wrong section, these aforementioned users would have reverted that edit and left a note as to why in the edit summary, after that they'd have mentioned in on the fucking talk page, at yet another reversion they'd have escalated him for spamming up the fucking admin pages by subverting the process. They do it, and fuck me gently with a chainsaw, it's allowed! One rule for some and not for others.... perhaps I should be shocked and amazed....

The pertinent point is how long Wan's bid will stay open for if at some point he chooses to accept. What happens if two weeks expire without him accepting? Will you then make a decision and establish crit 4 then? There could be a fuckload of users in this community waiting to see if he'll accept before noting that they are against his promotion, the guidelines and the entire fucking process is designed to give such users two weeks to register this disapproval should Wan accept and from that moment. This is an attempt to reduce the time and thereby subvert the process. If we're allowing this we may as well remove this entire fucking process and let Crat's promote on whim because this blatant double standard is making sure that dissent is discouraged or skirted through the actions of users that are supposed to represent and defend the will of the community of the UD wiki.

Further there is the precedent that Nubis established with Jerrel's promotion bid. Jerrel, like Wan, had not fulfilled the criteria. After seven days Nubis archived the promotion as failed due to the criteria not being fulfilled. We all know that he won't be objective and archive this bid if it also goes to seven days with unfulfilled criteria. Are you going to SA? Should we restore Jerrel's bid to let Crat's decide as per Karek's attempt to browbeat the community in his edit summaries? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You're attempting to reason with Iscariot here. Once he makes a point, right or not, it will be fought to his last breath.--SirArgo ^Talk 00:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, does it matter at all? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 01:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't see because we have two assholes who's job it is to make sure people don't get promoted without meeting all the qualifications along with having community support. It's largely irrelevant and as such we should be moving it like any other user. If we listened when Iscariot did crap like this we'd be the internet equivalent of teaching the mentally handicapped to fuck with sock puppets. Common Sense over rules loudmouthed idiots who dig for edit wars over unimportant issues. --Karek^maps?! 12:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Amen. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

One user does not fulfil one of the criteria. Nubis archives it after seven days.

Nubis proposes a user. Over a week later that user does not fulfil one of the criteria. Does this get archived? Is there any parity? No, one rule if a sysop likes you, another if they don't. Be shocked and amazed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Buddy, you need to get laid. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Jerrel failed three criteria (edits, "prior interest in maintaining the community", three vouches), not one. Second, the majority of people are vouching for Wan, while the majority were against Jerrel. So, no, it's not "one rule if a sysop likes you, another if they don't", it's more like "one rule if the community likes you, another if they don't", which doesn't sound half bad considering this is Promotions. It would help you in your Fight for the Rights of the Community if you actually paid attention to them. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

DanceDanceRevolution talk

• 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)

Who the fuck are you?--ScouterTX 14:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha and I didn't believe you were a goon. *so proud*

@Disco - It's not better because you actually vouched for him.--– Nubis ^NWO 01:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at your page. I really don't feel the need to comment much further now haha. 'Tard.--DiscoInferno 14:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, so you're saying that inactivity was actually a positive thing? Lol. If I ever want to be sysop again I'll know what to do; simply take a break for a month or two, come back, go on a spree of "good" edits then submit a bid. It can't fail. --Cyberbob 14:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• You are predictable, but I'll bite. No I'm not saying inactivity is good, I am saying that this user obviously knew he was heading down a bad path and did the only thing he could do to rid himself of it. I am vouching him because I think he would be a good sysop, not because he went on a hiatus. The fact that he came back shows me that he really wants to be here.--DiscoInferno 14:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Do you in fact know why he left? What if it wasn't to embark on some mystical journey of enlightenment but he simply was too busy IRL, or was butthurt about something that happened that he didn't like or any one of a million reasons (most of which far more probable too) than the one you name? I think you're playing armchair psychologist and I think you're dead wrong. --Cyberbob 14:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Judging by the way you carry on around me Bob, it doesn't look like I'm the one who is butthurt. Still, after all this time. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• What I want to know is, why the fuck does Cyberbob feel the need to make comments on everybodies vouches or againsts or abstains? He has already had his one opinion, and thats all he is worth on this page. If you disagree with someones opinion, then bad luck, its the Bureaucrats job to take opinions into account, not a regular users. Unless you are in some sort of important position, then why is your opinion more valid than somebody elses?--DiscoInferno 07:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why do you hate freedom? --Cyberbob 07:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• It's a discussion. All this discussion helps the bureaucrats make up there mind. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• omigod how dare you make a comment outside of ur vote ur such a fucking troll --Cyberbob 07:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• First, I never said it was a vote, if you bothered to be anything other than a fool you would realize that out of the 30 odd posts I have made, half of them are on this page, and half of those were explaining my loathing for people considering this a vote. On to your post, I hate freedom? You are the one that feels it necessary to make a comment on every post that you disagree with, oblivious to the fact that nobody takes a thing you say seriously, whether it is good or bad. I vouched, you could call that a freedom of mine, and you decided to attack me for it. Get the over your little piss fights with people, it looks as if it has been months. Grow up, and stop acting like a child. Also, if you meant to put a comma after the "Why", then no, I do not hate freedom, I just hate idiots who chime in like their opinion has any massive effect on this whole process anyway. You voted against, because you are have an incapability to rise above pettiness. We know that, so no more need to post. I'll be doing the same, regardless of what butthurt statement appears below this within the next 2.3 seconds.--DiscoInferno 07:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• YOUR RESISTANCE ONLY MAKES MY PENIS HARDER (9/10 would troll again) --Cyberbob 07:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, bob, I'm confused. Am I supposed to defend him this time? We seem to have switched roles here. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:44, 17 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)

• nice bad faith vote I'm sure the crats will definitely take it into account --Cyberbob 08:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing bad faith about my vote vouch. I weighed up the pro's and cons of the candidate and liked how he answered... the fact that it pisses you off is, as I say, a bonus!--Honestmistake 11:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• if you think I take you seriously enough to be pissed off that you're vouching for someone I'm against... lolnarcissism (you truly are nothing but an excellently easy troll target; your penchant for xbox hueg rants makes you juicy indeed) --Cyberbob 12:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I no longer care what you think Bob, why do you think i let you have the last word so often? Frankly you are a slightly amusing little troll and its funny to reflect that you really do think you are smarter than everyone here when the reality is that you are just a pathetic, bile filled little boy who still hasn't gotten over how "KEWL" it is to be rude on the internet--Honestmistake 13:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd rather be a "little boy" on the internet than a 30-year-old kthxbai (also way to disprove your own comment about not caring what I think by going to such lengths to try and shout me down) --Cyberbob 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're just as narcissistic. There are other people who read this wiki, yet you assume he does it all just for you. Now, could you two please stop spamming this page with irrelevant crap? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

eh what? who does what all just for me? plz to be more clear tia --Cyberbob 02:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• please leave this space blank for bob's tiresome last word--Honestmistake 13:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Lack of reasoning in "votes"

I'm noticing a disturbing lack of reason in user comments. It doesn't matter if it's a vouch, against, abstain, strongly or not, for the "vote" to be of any particular use, there needs to be proper rationale behind it, especially examples. Otherwise it's a pretty (or not) sig and doesn't aid the discussion or 'crats in any meaningful way. Perhaps there should be an extra large notice somewhere for people to see, explaining that this isn't a vote? (this would be a good link, by the way). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:26, 12 May 2009 (BST)

Oh come on. The crat's by and large just choose who they'd vouch for. Fair enough, that's what they were elected for but seriously there's nothing most people could sway that would change that view. Anyway the idea that a simply vouch means nothing is bullshit. You had an opinion of each person of the wiki and value what they think, so do the crat/s. Thus a simply vouch or against from user x tells will influence the crat. Anyway we already know which of the users is going to get promoted so, shrug.--xoxo 05:25, 13 May 2009 (BST)

It's not completely useless, in that it tells them they're are willing to vouch/be against, but as far aiding the discussion or the 'crats, it's not really useful. A lot of people don't seem to recognize that the process isn't a vote. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:20, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Certain people don't seem to recognize that this isn't Wikipedia. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:43, 14 May 2009 (BST)

As Iscariot. The community here is so small that Bureaucrats are elected under the trust that they know the community well. Users who may be considered for promotion should and would (if they had any probability of being accepted) be known by the bureaucrats enough so that the 'crats are already aware of any major issues about the candidate. Basically, if there is an issue so important that a user would have to bring in links as evidence, I like to believe that the bureaucrat would be aware of it already. And even if they don't, the wiki is small enough so almost anything can be found within a few minutes anyway. But my biggest issue is, if evidence becomes law, how would we deal with purged history? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:19, 14 May 2009 (BST)

You guys are misunderstanding what I'm saying. And Iscariot, that's right this isn't Wikipedia but this still isn't a vote so reasoning is normally required to get a point across. It's irrelevant. Engel already oversized the text so it's pointless to delve into this further for such a small issue. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:23, 14 May 2009 (BST)

No, you're the one not getting what we're saying. You are linking to a completely different community's consensus and attempting to tell members of this community that the way we are participating is wrong. You're wrong, and what you're doing is really fucking wrong. You know where policy discussion is, go change this community's policies if you think fucking Wikipedia does it better, see if this community agrees with you. What you're doing is no different to someone complaining about the pro-survivor bias on suburb pages and linking policy and guidelines from Conservapedia saying that this should be the criteria for sources. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:25, 14 May 2009 (BST)

No, what I'm saying is that people are missing the whole "this is not a vote" thing and that I suggested making it more clear. The link, to be added or not, was just intended to be a helper or a guideline. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:39, 14 May 2009 (BST)

Have a cry. --Cyberbob 05:39, 13 May 2009 (BST)

you mean go cry me a river? As the dead walk 12:13, 14 May 2009 (BST)

No, I mean "have a cry". If I meant "go cry me a river" I would have said "go cry me a river". --Cyberbob 13:00, 14 May 2009 (BST)

Haliman111

• Against - Umbrella relations fiasco. Also, the friend vouch thing doesn't matter because...

• 1. They don't have too many edits all in all, let alone in admin sections so they probably don't even know if you'd be capable to handle it or not.
  2. They're your friends and don't say anything other than "He's a good guy and doesn't afraid of anything". No citing of example or anything.
  3. Large amounts of vouches don't work because this isn't a vote.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 11:06, 12 May 2009 (BST)

  Excellent understanding of how it works. N.3 should actually work, I mean, the sysops (who decide in the end) do look at the number of vouches AKA community support right? But yeah, they are not part of the community like you specified in N.1 and N.2. All I am saying, he is better of removing his friends, since asking them in the first place isn't worthy sysops behavior anyway.--Thadeous Oakley 11:19, 12 May 2009 (BST)

  Of course I understand how it works, I'm a 'crat. I have to help decide if a bid fails or not, remember? :P --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 11:34, 12 May 2009 (BST)

  Just a minor technicality - it's the bureaucrats, not the sysops that do the "deciding," and more weight has always been given to the opinion of experienced users in these things. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:30, 12 May 2009 (BST)

  Alright, thanks guys, another thing learned.--Thadeous Oakley 12:08, 12 May 2009 (BST)

  Lots of people's friends and teammates vote for them. Barhah.com people often vote en bloc -- not because we're ordered to or have some kind of "hive mind", but because we often share similar viewpoints. Same goes for the DEM when they actually use the wiki. A few groups from his group isn't a giant problem, and isn't why I said no. --WanYao 22:01, 12 May 2009 (BST)

• It's completely pointless to express a preference now that a 'crat that will still be serving come decision time has said he's against your candidacy. Promotions cannot occur on a deadlocked decision, so the most you can get is one 'crat for and one against which is no promotion. This is now taking up space. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:44, 12 May 2009 (BST)

If that would be the case, then it would be utterly pointless to let the community's opinion be heard. Besides, it's the community that chooses and supports the bureaucrats. I think its safe to assume that the bureaucrats listen to the community voice. Cuz if they don't......well.. --Thadeous Oakley 13:09, 12 May 2009 (BST)

It is now useless for the community's voice to be heard, well done for reading exactly what I put and saying it again. With one 'crat against it's pointless for the other 'crat to be for because it still won't result in promotion. SA's against makes it quite clear he's not going to give assent to this promotion so this still being here is pointless. Your pseudo threat of misconduct is simply laughable, understand the circumstances before you try again, misconduct only works if the person you take to misconduct is disliked by the other sysops, if it was about objective principles can you imagine how many demotions would have occurred after the witchhunt they had to incorrectly remove J3D? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:31, 12 May 2009 (BST)

I meant that its pointless to do then in the first place. Leave promotion deciding completely to the bureaucrats. Also, your mum. --Thadeous Oakley 13:09, 12 May 2009 (BST)

I see Iscariot still has no balls to run for sysop. Hell, if you did I would vote for you just to shut you up.--SirArgo ^Talk 05:13, 13 May 2009 (BST)

I see you're still being a lying shit and popping back up when it suits you. There are three people I'd accept a nomination from, a serving 'crat, a current candidate and a former sysop that was incorrectly removed. You want me to stand? Go convince one of these to nominate me. Good luck on that. The decision isn't mine, it's theirs', but feel free to continue to sound like a member of TZH in the meantime. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:37, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Congratulations Iscariot, you're still a dumb ass. Just because I say my opinion on a bid from the start doesn't mean the person has no chance at being promoted. It just means that if it were being judged on my merit he wouldn't become a sysops. If the community decides that they want him despite my little reasoning, then he's a sysops. Please, go fail at wiki somewhere else.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 11:24, 13 May 2009 (BST)

So you're actually telling me if we had a mass invasion again and they contributed for two months and then used sheer numbers to gain a majority through this process you'd promote each and every candidate? No you wouldn't, this is the one area we expect judgement to overrule pure numerical advantage, that's why the community votes you 'crat rather than the position being a rotating one. The community votes you in and expects you to use your own judgement and opinion when ruling on promotions. Sysops aren't moderators but 'crats are implicitly supposed to use their own opinion and judgement to prevent people being meat puppeted into getting the buttons. If this was down to the community there wouldn't be a 'crat veto. Your assent is required in order for this candidate to gain promotion, if you give it even with such reservations as you put forward in your vote then you are failing the community as a 'crat. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:37, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Does negative attention make you feel better?--Thadeous Oakley 12:33, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Fine Iscariot, I lied! I haven't been gone because of your pettiness and strange belief that this Wiki is more important that life itself, I have been gone because I was busy losing twenty pounds with NutraSlim®. You know NutraSlim® is powerful and good considering it is packed with the essential minerals and vitamin needed to power your body to the edge, creating rapid and safe weight loss. Diets aren't for everyone, but everyone can enjoy a cup of tea now and then. Why, I lost 20 pounds in the first two months! I guarantee you will lose up to fifty pounds in five months, or I will give your money back.... Oh wait, where was I. Oh yes that's right, I lied no where and it seems as though Iscariot still has the lovely disposition that the current administration sucks, but is too fucking lazy to fix the place. Even though, for some reason, this place is the most srs one in all existance on the net, where any minuscule human error should be held against those who made it (barring Iscariot of course, due to the fact that he is an almighty god).--SirArgo ^Talk 22:49, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Loosely quoting Cyberbob: "Your resistance only makes his penis harder". Perhaps if you spent your time ignoring him (or even dealing with him on a professional level, though I like to trust that's over your head at the best of times) and actually contributed to the wiki, perhaps, with more people like that, this place will become less of a shithole than you would like to believe. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:56, 14 May 2009 (BST)

Don't fucking ever tell me what to do knowing nothing of the past. I have tried to be civil with him, he hated that more than this. Don't tell me I have done nothing useful on here either. Sure recently I haven't, but in the past I have done a lot of shit. And I think it's hilarious how you think you are so upstanding. What makes you the Overlord of the wiki? What makes you so damn special? I'm not trolling any more than anyone else, I can post what I want as long as it is within the rules. Fact is, if Iscariot dishes out his shit than I shall dish out mine back. End of story.--SirArgo ^Talk 02:40, 14 May 2009 (BST)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and propose that your age is less than 15. --Cyberbob 06:07, 14 May 2009 (BST)