UDWiki:Administration/Promotions

Template:Moderationnav Template:Promotions Intro

Candidates still requiring vouches

Rakuen

I'm bored and I need attention, so, have at ye--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 06:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Vouch - why the nigger not?--x o x o 07:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Against - His sig is silly. Also he never does anything.--Disco Inferno 07:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidates currently under community discussion

I've been thinking of doing this for a while now as I find Link to be a very useful and helpful member of the community who would make a good sysop. He's been around since before the 26th of July last year (History Purge wiped anything before that) and he's made somewhere in the region of 5-6000 edits. He's active in the administration sections regularly and already performs a lot of maintenance tasks. Either way, I think he would be a good sysop and this nomination has been a long time coming. -- C h e e s e 23:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that I've seen this. I'll make up my mind later :). Linkthewindow Talk 23:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I've decided I'll do this, assuming the community trusts me. I'm really quite bad at selling myself, but I encourage you to look at my contributions, my talk page and it's archive, as well as some of the administration archives (especially move requests and speedy deletions.)

I'll respond to any questions asked, so fire away. I'm probably what you would describe as a wikignome, making lots of small edits that people don't really notice (such as categorization, fixing template calls, and the like.)

As far as activity goes, I'm a student-my activity will likely drop off around exam time, and experience a surge during the holidays.

Other then that, I would like to thank everyone who has voiced their opinion (against/vouch/abstain, doesn't matter,) and continues to do so. It's a lot easier to know your flaws when someone's pointed them out to you :D. Linkthewindow Talk 07:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vouch - See above. -- C h e e s e 23:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hell yeah! or in other words, Strong Vouch. --Janus ^talk 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Third Vouch received at 23:31, 13 February 2009 (GMT) -- C h e e s e 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - Works tirelessly in the maintenance of the site. Perfect candidate. -- Rooster Dragon 23:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch I still think the new suburb massacre template should be a different colour to differentiate it, but hey. Strong candidate. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think the same now, but it's a tad late. Linkthewindow Talk 07:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - Most definitely. Been around slightly before my time but unlike me he's worked his ass off around here!--SirArgo ^Talk 23:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Against - You're not cut out for one of the most important jobs a sysop has, dealing with A/VB cases. I still think you would do a good job in other areas, but the shortcomings there are troubling. We can't have a wishy-washy sysop who can't bring himself to rule, and I also don't like your opinions on Hagnat's soft warning to that user. Personal threats of that manner can't just be shoved off like other things would. Remember, being a janitor is only a small part of a sysops job.--SirArgo ^Talk 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Abstain - Fails criterion four. Shouldn't be in this section yet, but Cheese seems to have caught Hagnat's making-shit-up-as-he-goes-along disease. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Questions for candidate: How would you rule in the past three misconduct cases that have been brought? What do you think are the problems with this edit? What would you do to rectify this if you became a sysop? You mention below in response to another user your possible incompatibility to be a sysop due to your habit of avoid drama, why have you not withdrawn this bid and allowed time to demonstrate to the community your ability to cope with drama if the need arises? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  - Firstly-Hagant's edit. There's no policy against threatening death (which is a personal attack, and the civility policy failed (more like fell flat on it's face.) That said though, death threats are extreme poor form and should be discouraged. If that was what Hagant was planning to do with his "pre-warning"-then good. However, saying that the user would get a perma next time is an empty threat, as it isn't against any policy (although, personal attacks of that level should be discouraged.)

I'll assume that this isn't including the recent SLR one? Anyway:

1. Boxy - Leaning Misconduct, but I would have had to have thought about it quite a bit first. Pretty much what Nubis said in the case - the sigs where pretty much the same. However, SLR has a history of doing stuff like that (pushing the boundaries of policy,) while SA didn't. It's not a clear-cut case.

2. Hagnat - Probably would have abstained (as I said below,) but leaning misconduct. When Hagnat banned him (the first time,) SLR wasn't given the full week, which he should have been given (according to policy, Boxy's new one institutes a much better rule over this, imo.) However, it's hard to see SLR's actions in good faith, especially after his comments on the talk page, especially this quote:

Sexylegsread said:

But, I don't think it does break policy. It isn't lost in a barrage of links, theres only six links, and its repeated a few times. 1/6th of my sig, as stated. I won't change it back to that, considering you are all fags who cant handle anyone who finds a policy loophole and exploits it, but yeah, it doesn't break the policy, thus isn't vandalism.

_{Source, emphasis mine}

In short, Hagnat acted early with his ban, but in light of SLR's comments on the talk page, it's hard to see his comments (and hence, actions,) in a good light (as exploiting a policy loophole is never in good faith.

3. Karek - Not Misconduct as the page was a deletion workaround. It was deleted in the first place (crit 7,) by Thad after a community outcry over it's existence. Admittedly, the situation was different at the time of the second vote (especially regarding the UBCS page,) it's still a workaround.

Finally, I plan on focusing on the more janitorial/maintenance aspects of sysoping (which can probably be inferred by my current wiki habits,) and taking it slow on A/VB and A/M for the first month or so. Most of the community doesn't seem to have an issue with that.

Thank you for your time. Linkthewindow Talk 03:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

- - Thank you for taking the time to respond Link. In response to your answers, Hagnat should have been immediately been demoted for threatening a user with an unwarranted ban and using his status as a sysop as an intended badge of authority, I'd have taken it to Misconduct but that place is no longer ruled on a case basis but by rather who brings the case. If any of our trusted users actually cared for proper procedure they'd be going over there and apologising for Hagnat's behaviour. I won't hold my breath though.... The Boxy and Karek cases were clearly not misconduct, the Boxy case resulting from a faulty perception caused by Hagnat's actions. The Hagnat case was clearly misconduct and your indication of an unwillingness to involve yourself seals this for me. I am unconvinced that there is a great enough volume of work on the admin pages to warrant token sysops for janitorial duties, placing useful contributors in positions of prominence where they are subject to stress was shown to be an error after the Gnome fiasco. Although you work hard on this wiki, I am not convinced that you require the extra buttons to increase your effectiveness, I am therefore forced to vote Against promoting you on this bid. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are deciding the SLR case based on his history and comment you are acting like a moderator not sysop, fyi. If Iscariot is actually against someone exploiting loopholes then ban the account because it has been hi-jacked. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's odd isn't it? If I'd have made snide remarks in response to someone else's vote then I'd be escalated for shitting up the admin pages. Double standards are quite peculiar aren't they? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Vouch - A helpful user who will be a great sysop. Unless he's into drunken wiki'ing like some previous sysops have been... :) --Pestolence^(talk) 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's not aimed at me by any chance? =p -- C h e e s e 23:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  - I sure hope not! :) --Pestolence^(talk) 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    - I think J3D is a more likely candidate.--Nallan (Talk) 07:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, actually. Sober all my life :D Linkthewindow Talk 07:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch -- I like what he's done so far, and can imagine what he'd do with additional powers. Asheets 00:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - Linkthatshit!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Strong Vouch - Good guy, resonable, helpful.--ScouterTX 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch I'm in. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
ooops Wrong answer. Link, the Edit that Iscariot pointed to was as a result of the user making real world threats against the safety of another user. What some folks are failing to remember is that Violations of the T.O.U. are AUTOMATICALLY considered banable... and this dates from Waaaaay back. There does not have to be a policy in place as this is a directive from "On High" dating from late 2005 early 2006. There is no policy because there doesn't have to be one.Against for now. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
ALiM, i mean vouch ;) --x o x o 02:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - Liberty 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - Fits the job perfectly. --Zs L 06:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - His constant use of edit summaries pisses me off no end (seriously - not necessary) but apart from that irrelevant detail he's alright. --Cyberbob 09:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Against - As others, etc. I really can't stand fencesitters and Conn's point about death threats is very well made. --Cyberbob 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've got it set up to prompt me if I don't use an edit summary. So, meh. Linkthewindow Talk 02:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - I was always kinda surprised that he wasn't a syops already.--Thadeous Oakley 10:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - Very much vouch for link. --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 12:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - Nothing wrong with him :). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦C:RCS¦} 12:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Strong Vouch - I was going to nominate him myself, he is an excellent user and I feel he would make an excellent addition to the sysop team.-- Adward 15:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
What is your opinion on the SLR-Haggie case that just finished?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 15:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't an easy one. With the comments that SLR made on the VB talk page it was clear that it was really just annoying trolling, but Hagnat banned him before the comments where made, making it clear trolling. His sig wasn't breaking any pages (with the exception of Karek's,) but he was disrupting the wiki to make a point. Although if I was a sysop at the time, I would have abstained, as I'm quite unsure. Linkthewindow Talk 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  - I hope you break the habit of abstaining, because it's far more unhelpful and cowardly than any other position a sysop could possibly take. --Cyberbob 21:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - He's everywhere! --Met Fan ^F 16:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - He's conscientious, helpful and level headed.--Lois Millard 17:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - Its about time ;) --D.E.A Talk 18:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - I see Link all over the wiki already, so if he's up for the added responsibility, I see no reason not to give him sysop status. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Against - Because of your reply to SA. If you weren't expected to deal with A/VB as a sysop I could support you, but A/VB is very important and sadly busy. If you can't make a decision one way or another on a case you won't make it. The point of that question is do you decide based on the policy or based on the user and not deciding either way is the only completely wrong answer.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, point taken. I tend to avoid drama, for better or worse. I know that there is a heck of a lot of drama inherent in being a sysop, and admittedly, it would be something I would have to learn to cope with, although not all our sysops spew drama at their ever step. Thanks for your message-it's a lot easier to have your flaws pointed out :). Linkthewindow Talk 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  - See, it isn't about avoiding drama. It is about making good decisions or at least standing behind your decision. There's still time! Go stick your nose in VB. :) --– Nubis ^NWO 02:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Against - Seems you are no good at choosing a side, and that is an important part of being a sysops.... Also, your name reminds me of falling out of windows.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 01:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - not a member of the confederacy of douchebags. now that I've got to know him. i trust him.----Sexualharrison 15:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
~~Abstain~~ - Your answer to Iscariot's question made me stop... Last I recalled, we have a zero tolerance policy towards threatening someone's physical, real-world safety. That has nothing to do with "civility" -- it's about breaking the law.... IMO what was wrong with that edit was that Hagnat totally ignored a very clear policy and gave a "soft warning" to someone who's been around the wiki a loooong time now. In so doing he basically made up his own version of the policy as he went along -- as per usual. I don't think you'd do that sort of thing intentionally, Link, but I'm a little concerned about that answer. I'll read more comments and allow you a chance to reply and see if I change my vote. --WanYao 17:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok... I'm Against now... Because as a sysop you kind of have to get get your hands dirty in the drama to a degree, make some hard decisions re: A/VB and Misconduct, etc. As others have said, you seem reluctant to do so, and that's rather a significant weakness IMO. --WanYao 17:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
vouch level headed and knows what he is doing. I lean towards Wans opinion where A/VB etc... is concerned but am sure you would not shy away when you have been given responsibility to be active there!--Honestmistake 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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. -- AHLG T G 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+N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N 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+N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N 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 :) --x o x o 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)

User:Karek

I was going to wait until the other bid was finished to do this but have decided it's gonna happen now instead.

I have been a sysop for a while now, there has been much drama relating to some of my actions a lot of various background work done. We've finally reached a point where the majority of the sysop team is actually active and doing stuff, I hoped we had reached a point where the sysops understood that they actually do have some control of the user base and should act accordingly (In a manner conducive to the administrative nature of the position) but I'll leave that to everyone else to decide, although we certainly are closer than we were when I was promoted.

I'm putting myself up here as opposed to simply demotion, because I feel that it would be improper for me to leave without at lest giving the community at least one final chance at assessing my treatment and actions as a sysop. Yes, this is a re-promotion bid, It's also probably not as good as it could be wording and information wise I've always sucked at these things. Have at thee.--Karek^maps?! 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Vouch Because he wants to baptise children in acid. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Against - I like Karek, but it looks like he's lost his smile, he's a good guy, and a good for the community.. but if he doesn't want it... he doesn't want it. If you change your mind... I'll happily change my vote.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Vouch - <Iscariot> It's not a pity, if Karek decides to stay, I'll be leaving the game. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Question - Do you want to stay on as sysop? --Janus ^talk 18:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(Strong Vouch if he wants, Against if he doesn't.) --Janus ^talk 21:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He's fine and all. I think you should stay. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Against - As per Anime Sucks. --Speels 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - If you want to stay on, you would be welcome. I believe you are an excellent sysop.-- Adward 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Abstain - I would dearly love it if you carried on, but if you want to leave this god awful place, then go for it. Also, as Anime.-- Adward 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Against - If you don't want to be sysop, don't do it. Even if the community is overwhelming support of keeping you on, if you don't want to do it then just don't. I find this move to be in somewhat poor taste because the last thing we need is a sysop who doesn't want to be there.--SirArgo ^Talk 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - As Anime's update. I don't know if it's true but it's worth a shot.--SirArgo ^Talk 21:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Very Strong Vouch - While I don't always agree with Karek, I very much respect his opinion and I personally find him to be a very able and knowledgeable member of the team. -- C h e e s e 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch Because I may not agree with what you say much of the time But I will defend with my life your right to say it. Honestly. Furthermore, no community may be properly represented in its administration without at least some representation from ~~all~~most possible angles. Karek is my counterpoint on many of beleifs I represent as my own. If Karek leaves I would have to change my public visage, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to do that. btw if anyone wants to comment on this please do it on my talk page so it doesnt shit up this validation of Kareks service and abilities. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Shit mate, one of the few people on this wiki I can count on to be intelligent and know what he's doing, and now you're going to leave? Damn. Do what you want to do, but I still say you did an awesome job.--SA 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - I would like to see him stay, he does a lot of useful work, with a minimum of fuss -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:44 5 February 2009 (BST)
Vouch - As ~~Nubis.~~ err...Suicidalangel. And who will be left to out-lawyer the wikilawyers if you go? DON'T LEAVE US! --Jen 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Erm...Nubis hasn't posted here yet. -- C h e e s e 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Good work, Team-BFF -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:17 6 February 2009 (BST)
Dangint! --Jen 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch I think I said everything on my talk page under Srs Question. I don't think you are as hated by "the community" as it was painted. Hopefully, this will give you the reassurance that people do respect you for taking the hardline on issues.-+N+BFF SA--– Nubis ^NWO 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - As others, I don't always agree with Karek... however, he's one of the best sysops we have. He always strives to things the right way, and is probably the single person I've learned the most from on this wiki. The wiki will lose a very good person if you go, karek. Sigh... :( --WanYao 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - You suck for putting Honest up for promotion, but apart from that you're alright. --Cyberbob 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - I don't always agree with your opinion, but I think you are as fair and unbiased as anyone will get around here. --Pestolence^(talk) 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Against - You want over here.--x o x o 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Btw that's an as anime not a i want you demoted nao.--x o x o 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Karek's a great guy, and what boxy said-he does a lot of work with very little fuss. Although he can attract drama sometimes, that's pretty meh overall. He's enough of an ass to make hard decisions and get things done, but he's nice enough to not simply piss everyone off for no reason, and create MOAR DRAMAS!!!! Linkthewindow Talk 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, Karek shouldn't be forced to stay on as sysop if he doesn't want it. Linkthewindow Talk 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

vouch Karek and I disagree on a great many things but he is always willing to explain and defend his position in a fair and logical way rather than just dismiss people as wrong he is also the most likely of all sysops to act without bias. Couple that with his understanding of how things work and i really doubt that we can afford to lose him... Still going to argue with him a lot if he stays though.--Honestmistake 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - As Linkthewindow and Honestmistake. You're pretty much the best sysop we have. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Meh - I know he has worked very hard as a sysops but the way he handeld a deletion lately was outright terrible, plain undemocratic. --Thadeous Oakley 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - Fair, unbiased and one of the best sysops around :). --D.E.A Talk 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch this is an easy one. as above. perfectly explained... speels go suck a dogs dick.----Sexualharrison 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - Bold in desicions but rarely wrong in my opinion. Liberty 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - While you might not always like they guy, he is necessary.--'BP^Tmz 23:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - --Bullgod 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch... OH SHIT BULLGOD ^.^ - --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 01:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Vouch - he does an awesome job here.,, dont see a reason why let him go. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 21:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Recently Concluded Bids

User:Honestmistake

Moved to archives. -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:54 16 February 2009 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Promotions

Contents

Candidates still requiring vouches

Rakuen

Candidates currently under community discussion

Linkthewindow

User:Nubis

User:Karek

Recently Concluded Bids

User:Honestmistake

Archived Promotions

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox