UDWiki:Administration/Promotions

Shortcut:
A/PM

Candidates still requiring vouches

There are no candidates requiring vouches

Candidates currently under community discussion

Yonnua Koponen

Yonnua Koponen (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Alright, so it's been a month since I was nominated by Thad, but as I said at the time, I thought it would be best to wait a month before running. So, the basic skin of the matter. I'm experienced in all manners of wiki activities. I know the admin pages well. I've also performed several large scale janitorial tasks. I helped Ross kick the Orphans, and I've been helping to keep the list down since then. I archive the suburb news once a month, an activity which I just performed on Thursday. Generally, I'm an active member of the community, and I'm hoping to take it to the next level, and help contributing as part of the sysop team. Well then, err, thanks for any vouches, and if you have any queries or issues, feel free to express them.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain Cyberbob  Talk  13:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Against - Nah, too obnoxious. Cyberbob  Talk  17:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Against - You've been getting better at everything but you aren't someone I trust when handling drama- and it's not something I have faith you'll stay away from. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Everything you do is positively contributing to the wiki. You're not afraid to have an opinion, but you're not a dick, either. I'm sure you can handle the drama and be a good janitor. 'Nuff said.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Vouch -Both as DDR and Giles. And hell, you kicked the some of the Orphans! --Janus ^talk 13:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  I got rid of a few. Maybe 100 odd. Ross did about 15 times as many as me. Mine was a very small part.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed. ^ --Janus ^talk 20:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - You're a keeper. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}14:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Slightly weaker vouch than last time. Although the admin stuff is all there, some of your dealings with the more prickly wiki users have been less than perfect. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Ross.-- SA 15:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - I trust him to what is right. ---^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 15:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Against - He is an active member of the UDwiki community, but as sysop, he would potentially have to deal with conflicts among other members. I have experience on a firsthand basis how thin skinned and immature he can be at times. --FLZombie 16:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  That would be when you accused me of vandalism, and I then showed you inconclusive proof that it wasn't me?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Not all questions or complaints have to be taken personally, Yonnua. It was not a vandalism accusation - if I actually did think it was, I would have reported it as such. It was a simple request to not alter the map - which may have occurred accidentally. I included images to show proof that the map was accurate as I had fixed it - not knowing that I had attributed the changes to you erroneously. Yes, I apologized to you - twice in fact - in view of how upset you were evidenced by your childish name calling. I am an otherwise helpful editor, at a level of expertise that could only be described as beginner or novice. I am not a troublemaker, and was attempting only to help. The wiki is a place where editors of all levels of experience contribute, and perhaps I should avoid dealing with you in the foreseeable future. I think you are a great editor, and I wish you the best, but as Sysop, it is expected that you will have to deal with more that a fair share of "stupid pricks... posting slanderous(sic) accusations" and you can't get into a fight every single time. I will end my involvement in this discussion with an apology for having caused you so much trouble. --FLZombie 01:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Just a small note; Don't call someone thin skinned and immature, when you don't want him to take it personally. That was a personal accusation alright. That was it. --Thadeous Oakley 18:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - He's a nice guy who does tons of wiki-helpful things, but that's not what makes a sysop. I'm unsure of his drama-immunity; though I've seen him avoid plenty, I've also seen him get caught up in a few shitstorms. I'd probably be more enthusiastic if I knew why you wanted sysop powers, Yon. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  To help out with the general admin tasks and flow of the wiki. Give me something to do on weekends. Also to provide support when other admins are absent. Oh, I also want to enforce a harsh ansd ruthless dictatorship to crush any wiki-resistance. ;) --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So you basically want op buttons for teh lulz and to rule on dramatic cases? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• against Active player, but says NO to every suggestion --Winman1 17:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Umm, no I don't...?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  He's just butthurt because his ideas suck. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - Just to counter winman1's incredibly lame rationale. (oh and he does good work too) --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:20, 15 November 2009 (BST)
• Against - you sound like you're black... insta-against--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 19:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  I love you(r) Rak.-- SA 21:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - Seems like he'd be good. ^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T - 20:49 15 November 2009 (BST)
• Weak Against - I actually would've been more up for supporting you last month. In recent history though, you've had a few lapses in judgement, such as the suggested policy that didn't go through, the dealings with Iscariot's vandal data, and one or two other matters that I don't recall off the top of my head. None of them are permanent black marks, but, as DDR mentioned, I'm afraid I wouldn't trust you with drama, which you've demonstrated an interest in getting involved in. I think you're a nice guy and do good work around the wiki (even thanked you for it earlier this week), but the drama issue is something I can't get around right now. —Aichon— 20:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Against - I don't think you are ready for the responsibilities involved in being a sysop. Don't take it personally. I think you're pretty cool, though :P --Chekken 01:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Against i'll change it to vouch if you promise to kick bob in the nuts once a month.----Sexualharrison 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - because i hated Winman's suggestions too -- 
  •   Timmah!  
  •   Talk  
  02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• weak against - You're a solid user, but I'm not quite convinced that you're sysop material. Not yet -- and one extra month isn't time enough... However, I don't think it matters what the community thinks anymore... c.f. red hawk one... le sigh --WanYao 02:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  +1 Mr. Yao. +1 -- SA 02:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Against -If I get in a mood where I feel like causing a ruckus, I would do it when you are on watch, because I don't think you are good enough to handle my shit. Hence, you vicariously shit yourself. You would understand if you gave yourself more than a months waiting time, instead of going away, making no improvements or endearing yourself to the community at large, besides getting in shitfights (and losing them) against some of the userbase and ultimately proving that if shit goes down, you can't handle it--CyberRead240 07:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Holy crap, been scrappin the bottom of the bloody barrel for awhile now on these promotion bids, but this is scrappin the shit off the floor underneath the barrel.--
  
  | T | BALLS! | 07:43 16 November 2009(BST)

  come back when you have had some real experience at creating mild shock.--CyberRead240 07:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Not interested in shock, mild or otherwise. It's just the sad truth.--

  

  | T | BALLS! | 07:47 16 November 2009(BST)

• Against A frequent contributer who does a lot of useful work but I am not sure Yonnua could even contemplate being a neutral judge when dealing with anyone he disagree's with and that is an absolute must for sysophood. --Honestmistake 12:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Against Only a month between bids? Asheets 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Because I didn't accept the last one, and wanted to run now.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - i trust him not to fuck with the tools that will be given to him, nor to abuse his ruling powers in his favor... has he little experience with admin stuff, sure. But there are several other sysops that can help him see the way(tm) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Against Not a good fit at the present. --M arcusF ilby ^T 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - As Giles, also disagree on the drama thing, he's better than most at avoiding it. --Explodey 20:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Recently Concluded Bids

For more concluded bids, see Promotion Candidacies.

Red Hawk One

Red Hawk One (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Hello,

I have actively contributed to the wiki since July 2009, and have worked intermittently since early 2009. In this time I was the driving force behind completing the BIC (as documented here and in my contributions), and partially behind the recent revival in demerging locations pages (as evidenced in the prior link, as well as the previous three month's A/SD records). I often follow A/SD, A/PT, and A/MR, although as a regular user I am currently unable to really do anything on those pages. So far as I can tell, I have made no enemies, and am polite and professional in my conduct with other users. For these reasons, I wish to run for sysop, in order to better maintain the wiki as an information source for the game.

Thank you,

--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 05:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - Demonstrates an interest in the wiki and how it works. Shows no issues with drama or poor handling of drama. A good janitor. The more of these users we have, the better. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:10, 31 October 2009 (BST)
• Vouch - Beep boop Cyberbob  Talk  07:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Against - No involvement in administrative or policy pages. There's no need for you to have sysop powers in order to remain a valuable contributor to the wiki. --WanYao 08:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Like I said, I'd need to know how you react in a hostile situation before I could approve of you. We've always had too many strictly janitor sysops and not enough judges to judge the damned and stuff. Fuck I'm not even sure what I was going to say anymore.-- SA 09:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Against - Unless he stays away from the drama sections. --Thadeous Oakley 09:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch however, Question. What would you do with your sysops powers, and why do you need them? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  Question answered on my talk page if anyone wants to read the response. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain - I'd vouch you straight out of the gate, but you need more drama experience. Argh, why are all the people I want as sysops runnign at the same time!--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Against If Sysop status just gave you the ability to tidy things up easier I would vouch. It doesn't though, it also calls upon you to make fine judgements about vandals, misconduct etc... and for that people should have at least some evidence of how you would exercise that judgement. In otherwords.... get some experience in the areas that show your judgemnt. --Honestmistake 11:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Exremely Weak Vouch - You've done ALOT of work for this wiki, but if you want to get strong supports, you should get on more admin pages. --Haliman - Talk 13:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - While doing a lot for the wiki, i must agree with Honestmistake about vandals, and misconduct. I will say i log in a lot and on Recent Changes you have done quiet a bit of work. -- 
  •   Timmah!  
  •   Talk  
  14:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch--Winman1 21:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - Who? Also, what's with all the sudden flood of Sysop bids? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  They all felt like now would be the best time to run. It's not like the amount should change your opinion of whether someone deserves 'ops or not.-- SA 04:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  I abstained because I've never met the guy and know nothing about him, and am therefore unqualified to judge his character or usefulness as a sysop. It is wierd that there are so many bids though. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• No' who the fuck are you even, I dont even know even what are you right? So bad.--CyberRead240 05:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Knows what he's doing, has made plenty of good contributions and is able to be critical without being a douche. Great user and would make a great sysop.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Against - You don't need extra buttons to do what you do. You don't need extra buttons to improve the wiki. I don't want you to have extra buttons because I have no idea of how you're going to act when you get on A/VB or A/M. This notion that people who implement new systems and templates on the wiki will make good sysops is simply idiotic, they either make a mess of rulings or they just stick their heads in the sand and ignore these pages even when they are required. We already have two drama adverse sysops simply taking up space on the roster, I don't want more that will leave ruling in the hands of a small group. We need sysops that can rule based on understanding this community, its precedents and policies. They can then be taught to move/delete/restore pages far quicker than we can teach you what you need to know about vandalism, misconduct and good faith. Also, messing up a move isn't serious, causing a ruling to go the wrong way because you want to be nice can have much more serious consequences for this community. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Against - As WanYao and (surprisingly) Iscariot. --Private Mark 22:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - I've seen your edits and agree that you're a valuable contributor, but I don't feel that I have a grasp of how you would handle certain situations that sysops must face. —Aichon— 00:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yawn, nahhh - charlie does everything janitorish about 5 minutes before its due to be done and so as iscariot, well his first sentence - i assume the rest is in a similar vein. xoxo 06:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - in soviet russia, promotions vouchs you --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• against needs moar drama... tell iscariot to shut the fuck up a lot more. that would swing my vote.----Sexualharrison 17:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• against -- In the past I have generally voted against people who nominate themselves. All the candidates I've ever voted for had somebody else nominate him/her. I sense a pattern... Asheets 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch -Good contributor; liked his answer on Rosslessness' talk page. --Janus ^talk 14:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Response after input period closed struck -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

:'( --Janus ^talk 16:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You're comment is valid, Janus, donut worry! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We iz profesionls! --Janus ^talk 23:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Shush up, I've had a bad day with spellinga nd ragmmar. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a voting process, all vouches are valid while the bureaucrat team does not reach a decision. Vouch unstruck --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave it striken, it's ok and it's still readable. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Result

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflicted)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few quibbles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rorybob

Rorybob (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

I have actively contributed to the wiki and its community since July this year. In this time, I have played a part in setting up the Building Information Center, and also started up the Survival Lexicon. I am an occasional visitor of DS, and am familiar with the process of Deletions. I believe I have had no major disagreements on the wiki with another member.

I am currently unmerging locations pages and updating all Auto Repair Shop and Factory pages with their corresponding Danger Reports in the process of updating the TRP template.

What say you, denizens?

---

Rahrah^{Come join the #party!} 12:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain - Great guy, needs more edits. You've done 500 in two months, but 1000 takes you back to 2008. More time in the community. 1 month, 2 months? Just to bring it up to 1000 recent edits.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Can't believe I am doing this. But I like you, and some of the work you've been doing demonstrates that you know how to use the wiki. This is a very weak vouch though, only because if you kept this up for another month and came back you'd have my full support. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch Rory has done good grunt work, asked questions when he's stuck, revived the lexicon and thought the Monroeville Many were historical.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Against No. --Thadeous Oakley 13:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• ROSIE O'DONNELL SIZED AGAINST WHO THE FUCKING MOTHERFUCK ARE YOU? GTFO WITH THIS FAGGOTRY.--CyberRead240 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Not yet my good sir. But keep up the outstanding work!-- SA 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Fuck it he does good work anyway. Horde vote enhanced amirite -- SA 01:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  Ubrite. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch Seems to have done a lot of work towards making the wiki better. - User:Whitehouse 15:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Against - You are a good user and a positive force. But you need more experience. Take the unmerged locations you cited. They aren't actually finished yet. For example. I'm not blaming you, because you probably didn't know about the extra coding needed, categories to add, etc., but this does demonstrate you need more time to learn the wiki, which I'm confident you will. Keep up the good work!--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

*Against I'd like to hear some more of your work first. Asheets 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - Hey, why not Cyberbob  Talk  20:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - I think this dude is pretty level-headed and "well-intentioned", I definitely like the idea of him being a sysop now or in the future. --Obi ^{+ Talk!|TZH|MDK} 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Seems like the right material. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - I've never met him and know almost nothing about him, and am therefore unqualified to judge his worth as a sysop candidate. He can't really be that active if I've never run across him once, though. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - I haven't been around the wiki for long, but I'm decently aware of most of the other sysops in general, yet only vaguely aware of him. The bit I've seen is okay, but not nearly enough to base a decision on. —Aichon— 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - Turns into a vouch when the mudkip gets back in your sig. But really, as Yonnua's bid, more experience blabla, I'll vouch in another month if you keep doing good work and run again. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:34, 29 October 2009 (BST)

  Re: It's still there on /sig. :P †[R]^{[ah] [R][ah] [B][ahb]} -- User:Rorybob/status22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC) <-- See?

• Vouch - Excellent janitorial type. --  RoosterDragon  22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Against but only because I have not seen you active in any of the areas that require you to deal with drama (or make sound, policy based decisions) Show your mettle there and it will be a solid vouch from me. --Honestmistake 23:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A/M and the like? I see. It shall be done at some point in the near future. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}00:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A/M, A/VB, A/A. The three drama capitals of Wikonia.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

exactly those types of page. A sysop is a janitor and you seem to have all the needed skills but I don't recall seeing any presence in the area's that are contentious. Obviously you can't "rule" but making you opinion known helps us judge if you are right for the parts of the sysop role that call for you to be trusted in every sense. Keep up the good work though... someone has too :) --Honestmistake 00:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - As Rooster --Haliman - Talk 01:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Against - As Honestmistake, become a little more active in those areas and i will change my vote. -- 
  •   Timmah!  
  •   Talk  
  04:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - I've seen some of your input, and it's been sound thus far. Keep up the work and I think you'll make a great sysop. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 05:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• As Iscariot - once he makes a decision. This guy seems pleasant enough but will probs just sheep vote... xoxo 09:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  I agree, Rorybob is clearly the sheep here. Cyberbob  Talk  09:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  Okay so i could ignore you but thats boring, pretend that i didn't notice your sarcasm - always good for a laugh but you play the sarcasm card so often that even i'm starting to tire of it or i could point out that your comment is entirely irrelevant to what i wrote and that my as iscariot vote could have been an as anyonewhohasnt voted yet vote but you know that already too so i'm not left with too many options. I guess i'll just go with unedited wall of text and see what happens. xoxo 09:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  So... That hasn't been your usual strategy for the past 2 years? Oh... --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  God no. 9/10 i'd go with pretending to not notice sarcasm. xoxo 09:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  Meant unedited rants. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah i know, i just think they aren't one of my more used tactics. From time to thyme to be sure, but not that often. Wheres bob gone? xoxo 09:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  ...? Idon'geddit. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}12:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - i strongly believe rorybob will not misuse the tools that come with sysophood. He is OK in my book for promotion --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Rorybob has proven a capable and friendly editor, who has selflessly volunteered for a majority of the recent tasks designed to better the wiki.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 06:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Against - As Honestmistake --WanYao 08:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Against - You don't need extra buttons to do what you do. You don't need extra buttons to improve the wiki. I don't want you to have extra buttons because I have no idea of how you're going to act when you get on A/VB or A/M. This notion that people who implement new systems and templates on the wiki will make good sysops is simply idiotic, they either make a mess of rulings or they just stick their heads in the sand and ignore these pages even when they are required. We already have two drama adverse sysops simply taking up space on the roster, I don't want more that will leave ruling in the hands of a small group. We need sysops that can rule based on understanding this community, its precedents and policies. They can then be taught to move/delete/restore pages far quicker than we can teach you what you need to know about vandalism, misconduct and good faith. Also, messing up a move isn't serious, causing a ruling to go the wrong way because you want to be nice can have much more serious consequences for this community. Additionally this user has previously decided that his own opinions and perceptions are all he needs to go around changing stuff for other groups. I have doubts about his ability to remain impartial. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  In my opinion, the majority of those that put themselves up for sysop don't need the tools that come with the post, nor do they have much experience in A/VB or A/M. From looking at the Successful bid history, I can only see Jedaz needed the "buttons". (Although the reference to needing the Move function is very slight, it is the only mention of needing sysop tools I have seen reading through the old bids.)

  I am also slightly confused by the comment "This notion that people who implement new systems and templates on the wiki will make good sysops is simply idiotic", as leadership is one of the criterion for sysophood, something which implementing new systems requires. I also found a quote from Vista(A former Crat.): "...the position of a sysop is that of a glorified janitor." You may well say it's idiotic, but that notion seems to have stayed for at least two years.

  In response to the last statement, I was in the wrong. If I were to find something on the wiki that I disagree with, I would now check around and try to find out about the oddity. I suppose there is no-one I can thank for that trait than you, Iscariot. But I might mention Vista once again, who (in the same speech) said this: "The only place where a small amount of personal judgment is possible is the vandal banning page."

  ---Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}19:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  At least you, unlike the other one are actively engaging criticism rather than burying your head in the sand. You're not seeing though the difference between a good programmer and a good community leader. Take the recent Nubis misconduct case, given the magnitude of that case we needed every sysop to participate and state their judgement and opinions about it, it's part of the responsibility of being a sysop. The Rooster didn't, even when reminded. The Rooster is an excellent programmer but he is a bad sysop. Sometime you have to go into the drama for the good of the community, even if all you're going to do is post 5 paragraphs of reasoning, opinion and precedent that boils down you "Yep, I agree". I don't know how you'd do this because I've never seen you in any drama or attempting to create policy or bring forth relevant precedent. I don't want you getting buttons on the basis that you've done some helpful templates and watch you completely mess up user's vandal cases, misconduct case etc. for eight months until I can get rid of you. You really have to make the effort here to prove as best you can that you'd be able to cope with this to the community before you get the buttons. To be fair, I don't think you'd break the wiki if given move powers, but I'm not sure that you'd make the right decisions in places like VB or Misconduct. You don't need the buttons to continue your good work, and your use of the admin pages (to get emptied combined location pages deleted say) won't actually change as you can't do these actions yourself according to policy due to the need for oversight. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  Truly told, I don't have any of the experience you deem necessary. I will, therefore, try and immerse myself in Misbantration, or whatever shortening of the three pages names tickles your fancy. In all honesty, I have pretty much no idea how arbitration works and have actively avoided it before now, prefering to stick with what I know. But, seeing as I want to be a sysop, I need to learn how that and the other misconduct pages work. So, in short "I agree." Comment by Rorybob at 19:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Arbitration isn't a "misconduct" type of page... It doesn't often work and is mostly a tool for people to to persue their petty vendetta. Looking to reform it back to a useful community page on the otherhand would be well worth it if successful!--Honestmistake 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• no wow july huh? come back when you done anything i've noticed.----Sexualharrison 17:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• against -- In the past I have generally voted against people who nominate themselves. All the candidates I've ever voted for had somebody else nominate him/her. I sense a pattern... Asheets 18:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The nomination has ended, and Boxy and I have talked about Rorybob's bid. First off, I'm going to say that neither I nor Boxy have any compunction with promoting hard-working users who don't deal with drama, we've had plenty of fine examples to demonstrate that such users make good ops, and even past our time, if there was anything I would have stay in the wiki's administration culture, it would be that mentality.

More to the point, Rory is an example of one of these users, and oneday, personally, I would like to see him as an op. But at the moment, he's a little bit rusty with the going-ons and falls a little short of op material, and personally, Boxy and I would like to see an extension of his great community work before he is promoted. Keep it up, bud, and I think you'll become an op soon. Rejected, but try again in a month or two. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rosslessness

Promoted and archived. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Archived Promotions

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