UDWiki:Administration/Promotions

Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

This page is for users to request System Operator status. The act of user promotion is restricted to those with bureaucrat status, and as such users will need to request user promotion here. System Operators and Bureaucrats cannot assign promotions unless the request has gone through this page.

Guidelines for System Operator Requests

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:

Significant time within the community.

We define this as at least 6 months since the candidate's first edit.

Note: looking in a User's User contributions might give false results for this criterion, as the edit history is periodically purged on this wiki.

Significant activity within the community.

We define this as at least 250 edits in the past six months under the candidate's name.

Note: looking in a User's User contributions might give false results for this criterion, as the edit history is periodically purged on this wiki.

Prior interest in maintaining the community.

We define this as clear evidence that the candidate is already performing maintenance tasks and taking leadership roles on the wiki.

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).

If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain amount of leeway may be given with the other criteria.

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 to allow all users an opportunity to voice their opinion regarding a candidate's qualifications for promotion. After two weeks, the Bureaucrats are responsible for announcing their decision within a reasonably short period of time. Users may continue to add their thoughts until the Bureaucrats announce their decision. The current amount of System Operators running should not influence your decisions when voicing your opinion.

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.

Example Application

Example User

Example User (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | vndl data)

I've been around 3 months, and I've made to date 550 edits. As you can see [link here] and [link here], I've been in the leadership role attempting to create a new format for this page. I'd very much like to become a System Operator.

Vouch - I am willing to vouch for this user. -- Voucher 03:41, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Against - Example User, I haven't seen any evidence of your work on the wiki. --Some user 19:01, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Vouch - Example User is the most active guy here. --Another user 19:01, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Abstain - I'm just not sure, but I don't want to say why for some reason. --Some other user 19:01, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Question - I just want to know what you think about this subject? --Yet another user 21:26, 4 April 2013 (BST)

Candidates currently under community discussion

User:Karek

Karek (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | vndl data)

Karek has been here, well, forever and has proved himself an excellent sysop in the past. His contributions rate has increased markedly of late, and doesn't show any signs of dropping off, and when asked on his talk page he showed a general interest in the idea -- boxy 03:58, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Yeah, I'm ok with this. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:42, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Autovouch - Karek has a good technical knowledge, and understanding of the wiki and how it should work -- boxy 03:58, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - He voted against repealing my permaban, so he's probably right about a lot of other stuff, too.. -- Amazing?! 04:21, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - The thought of him with admin rights given his past performance makes me gloomy User:teehee mcgee 12:07, 24 April 2011 (PST)
Against - this vote is a filibuster – Nubis ^NWO 04:29, 24 April 2011 (BST)
also, WIKI LAW – Nubis ^NWO 04:50, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - I am not confident in his ability to remain impartial and fair. Especially when taking into account the above vouch by amazing. -- DeRathi 1:30pm 24 April 2011 (AEST
Against - For reasons which, in accordance with federal WIKI LAW, I am not allowed to discuss publicly.--ебут этом гомосексуальные земля́, ebut ėtom gomoseksual'nye zemlя́ ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||_{Retarded things go here -->} 2 3 4 User:MisterGame 04:38, 24 April 2011 (BST)
I must admit, I'm horrible at WIKI LAW, I never autobanned goons. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:42, 24 April 2011 (BST)
That won't win you points with the Old Boys' Club, given how all the other admin staff feel about goons around here. -- DeRathi 1:51pm 24 April 2011 (AEST)
If anything he just proved that he doesn't deserve to be an enforcer of High-WIKI LAW. It's nothing personal, but some people just aren't cut out to sperg and enforce the WIKI LAW the best of them. You're still extremely ANIME uguuuuu~ though. So there's that.--ебут этом гомосексуальные земля́, ebut ėtom gomoseksual'nye zemlя́ ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||_{Retarded things go here -->} 2 3 4 User:MisterGame 05:00, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - Can't trust a guy who doesn't autoban goons. Or who does, I forget which. Either way WIKI LAW --Laughing Man 04:48, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - Wiki is bad enough without adding partisan admins --Pleads 04:53, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - WIKI LAW has spoken. --SprCobra 04:55, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - I am afraid I have to concede to the highest law in the land (it's WIKI LAW) and say no to this travesty of justice. --カシュー, ザゾンビクィーン (ビープビープ) @ 05:02, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - "You have been warned for illegally striking votes on a discussion. Kindly refrain from doing so in future until there is a policy that permits it. Until then all peoples opinions are weighted equally and worthy of being heard." I must also concede to the law commemorated in bombastic black text. --Lex Lotor 05:14, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - Karek has been holding this internet browser game wiki back for too long. I think that it's time for him to step aside. --Anothergenericzombie 05:19, 24 April 2011 (BST)
vouch - we had a rocky start but even if there was animosity between us it'd still be nullified by the amount of work he is doing and help he's doing. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 05:33, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch no brainer. should almost have a perma sysop staus like boxy.-- bitch 05:54, 24 April 2011 (nyc rulez!)
Vouch - Dude's been active and been a real help around the wiki for some months since becoming active again. ~ _{07:28, 24 April 2011}
Against - We can't just let every Tetsuo, Daikatana and Sephiroth enter the highest ranks of leadership; the integrity of this wiki is too important for that. --甘いノーム愛感覚的の私の型板!!! 09:22, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - Concerns re: impartiality --عبد الريحم بن حسين بن عبد الرحمن العراقي المصري‎ 10:53, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - You're a loose cannon, turn in your badge and submit to WIKI LAW. --Bender Bending Rodriguez 19:38, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - Just because you've been editing lots of pages doesn't mean that transgressions against WIKI LAW should be swept under the rug. --Djohariah 11:05, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - Always a great help back in the day, not afraid to offer opinions. If he's stupid enough (kidding!) to want to be a sysop again, why not? Linkthewindow Talk 11:16, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - Yarp. -- C h e e s e 11:19, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - The WIKI LAW is too strong with this one. --Deadone 12:24, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Against - Good lord, the WIKI LAW. This won't do at all, no sir. --モッズはホモです 12:53, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Question - How do you respond to the above 'concerns' about your impartiality?--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 13:58, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - Who can say no to a man with bells. ♥ Moonie ^{Talk Testimonials} 14:08, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - If it means no more backseat sysoping from God's Gift To The Wiki, sure.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:16 24 April 2011(UTC)
Vouch Sure. Smyg 14:17, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - In accordance with the prophecy --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 15:50, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - Karek is a ~~secret~~ member of our ruin the wiki club. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:15, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - The jingle of a dog's collar would be good right here. --Akbar 16:33, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - because I'm tired of doing all the deleting, moving and other admin stuff he constantly requests myself :P Seriously, though, Karek's not just extremely tech-savvy, he also has made a strong return with a lot of behind-the-background gnomeing. As an additional (though weaker) plus, he also isn't afraid to have an unpopular stance and stick with it on the opinion pages. -- Spiderzed █ 16:38, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - Cause someone with that much un-support must me good--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 17:16, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - Good technical user. Reasonable. Kinda has an odd writing style. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 17:19, 24 April 2011 (BST)
<math>*Against - This man does not approve of the Shotokan arts, I am thus unable to support him.</math> User:Ryu
Vouch - Three cheers for Karek! --Desyana 06:29, 25 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - As Moonie --Fiffy ⁴⁰⁴ ^♥ ^OBR ^♥ ^RRF 06:40, 25 April 2011 (BST)
Against - No Go, Houston we have a problem, we have a failure in WIKI LAW unit 3 --Vaporware 15:34, 25 April 2011 (BST).
Vouch - --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I_!^T 16:33, 25 April 2011 (BST)
Against - Questionable conduct. --Susan Bakersfield 18:34, 25 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - WIKI LAW oh lookie, am i doing it right ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:20, 25 April 2011 (BST)
Vouch - He has a VERY strong technical background, and, in IRC conversations with him, I've seen that he's over my head on some or a lot of the technical know-how related to the wiki (which is kinda nice, since Rooster was the last regular who frequently did technical things I didn't always understand at a glance). He's not afraid to disagree when it needs to be done, but he doesn't do it just for the sake of doing it. I have a few things I'm not sure about, but none so worrying that they would lessen the strength of my vouch. Adding him to the team would be a good thing. —Aich on— 21:07, 25 April 2011 (BST)
Against - Vouch by Amazing says it all really. - Rotting TRex 04:50, 26 April 2011 (BST)
Against The WIKI LAW has spoken. - ShufflesMcgee 04:57, 26 April 2011 (BST)
Against - Questionable impartiality. --Polymphus 06:50, 26 April 2011 (BST)
Against - I've been looking through his past edits and I'm not at all happy about his work. --Fartibartslart 07:49, 26 April 2011 (BST)