UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Nubis/2009-02-06 Re-Evaluation

Administration » Sysop Archives » Nubis » 2009-02-06 Re-Evaluation

User:Nubis

I don't want to steal Karek's thunder, but I think he and the others have a point that sysops shouldn't be afraid of the community opinion. If they are then they probably aren't doing their job correctly. I'm one of the longest standing sysops and it's probably time I put myself up for a review. (to be honest, the majority of the work I do doesn't require Sysop powers) but hopefully I have shown that I can be reasonable and fair in A/VB/M matters.

Besides, if Karek steps down this place may fall into chaos and I don't want to see that. So, again, following his wise lead, I'm submitting a re-promotion bid.

I don't really know what else to say, but consider it open season on any complaints/issues and I will address them. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch --Cyberbob 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against - For following Karek's retarded example. If anyone else had put up a case on administration in which a result either way would not change the current status, like putting a deleted page up for deletion or reporting a perma banned user they'd have been escalated for shitting up the admin pages. Apparently not here though with one rule for sysops and one for ever fucker else. If you want to be 're-promoted' you have to be demoted first, basic logic and English. Hagnat may have pulled emo-validate-my-existence-by-saying-nice-things-about-me shit in the past but that doesn't change the basic premise that this is crapping up an admin page (whilst a user who is actually up for promotion has a bid in progress no less) and you should all know better. I'd remove both of these on basic principle that you can't be promoted but we all know you'd use excuse to escalate me in the fair and impartial way you do. If you really want the community's opinion, go submit a demotion request and then go for re-promotion properly. And why are you 'Under Community Discussion' when you haven't received three vouches yet? One rule for sysops.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  I think you are missing the point that this could very well change my status.

  I did, however, put it under the wrong heading because I was posting on my way out the door and worried more about getting the news item right than the placement of this. Sorry. That was an accident. I would move this to the right place, but it has enough to be here now, so that would be pointless. (Actually, I forgot AHLG wasn't a sysop anymore - going to move it. - now) I see SA posted. It can be here now.

  Mostly this is about giving the users a place where they are expected to vent any and all concerns about a user. A place where (unlike a talk page) I don't have control of the content and where it is public enough that even casual users can respond. I would think that you of all people would welcome this IF the sysops doing it actually agreed to abide by the communities opinion at the end. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  Nubis is correct, even if it was triggered by karek's move, it's still a brave move to put yourself up for reevaluation no matter what the circumstances are. Nubis is showing a trust in the community by putting himself in such a position. And Iscariot, stop nitpicking. The discussion has been accepted by the community on both reevaluations, so stop nitpicking and actually say what you think of the abilities of both Sysops, rather then nitpicking on something that doesn't matter.-- Adward  10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• No offense, but you sometimes come across as 'biased', although I'll leave it is an assumption since this is the internet and there are no MIND-READING DEVICES. Other than that meh, I don't have any real problems with you, except you're a little odd sometimes... I think you have a good balance on the 'ignore the rules', ie, not going overtop with it. Your work is good too. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain for now - You are a HUGE asset to the sysop team and I fully support you, but I want to wait until the drama surrounding these promotion bids of you and Karek dies down a little and we get official opinion on it before I officially vote. Yes, I'm weird like that.--SirArgo ^Talk 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  Vouch - Tired of waiting, I'm voting now.--SirArgo ^Talk 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• As Gnome. Does his share of work around here, reasonably fair. Overall an alright guy, if a bit of a hothead sometimes. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• BFFs FOR EVA! Other than the Amberwaves deletion thing, I've never had a problem with Nubis. And besides that, it was almost entirely about opinion that the conflict started at all. He also makes me laugh.--BFFs +SA+NSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSAN 4 EVA!!! 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  I had to fight for the Amberwaves image "on principle" because I didn't want the Marty Banks pictures deleted. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  I'd have fought to keep those, because a lot of them were well made, not just "Lol fat" wrote in MS paint.--BFFs +SA+NSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSAN 4 EVA!!! 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• abstain/borderline vouch I don't often see eye to eye with Nubis but I do know that he argues from principle rather than spite/bias. He does a lot of good work around the wiki and my only real issue with him is that a very large amount of the petty and technicality misconducts that are brought against him would be avoided if he followed the rules --Honestmistake 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  At least those petty and technical misconduct cases don't involve banning users. That has to be something.-- #99 ^DCC 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch he sometimes makes me laugh, and has never crossed me yet. gold in basket please.----Sexualharrison 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - "Distinguished quality. A remarkably prime sysop. Thanks. A+!" --Janus ^talk 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  Fast shipping! Good Communication! Would bid again A++++++++++-- #99 ^DCC 09:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - As AHLG, you seem a little odd but, I don't see you doing anything wrong which should keep you from being sysop. Liberty 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Yer ok fer a Goon ;P --WanYao 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  Dem's fightin' werds...oh, wai--- #99 ^DCC 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch He's NEVER been considered a Good sysop. and as Wan. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch Nubis is my homeboy. -- #99 ^DCC 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Damn good Sysop. -- Adward  10:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Abstain - Meh. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - the only issues i had with nubis was during the conflict between some wiki users (such as myself) and the goons. Aside from that, i agree with him most of the time and strongly trust him not to abuse his powers. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nubis ego +1 :) --xoxo 07:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain - Who?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - As Janus. --Haliman - Talk 02:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion Closed - More conferation with the Box. -- Cheese 10:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

After a quick natter with my Box-shaped counterpart, Nubis shall retain his sysop status. =) Successful. -- Cheese 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)