UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Linkthewindow/2009-02-13 Promotion

Linkthewindow

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. -- Cheese 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. -- Cheese 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) -- Cheese 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Works tirelessly in the maintenance of the site. Perfect candidate. --  RoosterDragon  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 -- Cheese 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)
• VouchStrong 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 ;) --xoxo 02:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  Okay i'm going with abstain, i like you and i think you do a lot of good work. But your avoidance of areas of drama isn't a useful talent for a sysop...--xoxo 08:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ahhh have a vouch, sheesh.--xoxo 11:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vouch - Liberty 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Fits the job perfectly. --ZsL 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)
    • So... don't have it set up to prompt you if you don't use an edit summary? --Cyberbob 08:01, 16 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.ATalk 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)
• Against - I have done a lot of lurking lately and I can tell you that I don't think he really does anything that requires the sysop badge. Also, if he wants to abstain on administration issues then what is the point anyway?--Disco Inferno 07:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against -- The position requires impartiality, and you aren't too good at that. Maybe sometime in the future, but not right now. --Captain Rickety 21:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - As Honest. --Haliman - Talk 23:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - As many of those above. He's good. --dgw 11:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Vouch - He's very knowledgeable, helpful, and active. --Fiffy 11:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Against -If you abstain from facing the tough decisions, what's the point of being a Sysop. You might be helpful, but being a sysop is more than just that.--Ferrum Leo 21:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Vouch - Very active, as seen with his constant pestering of groups to check on their activity. --Blanemcc 10:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Not that it will do you much good, but I feel like belatedly throwing myself in, if nothing but for good will. I've talked to Link enough that he knows what I think. Such a shame that it's much easier to write a convincing Against than it is a Vouch. --YoHoho^Talk 08:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

After discussion with SA, Link has been promoted -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:19 3 March 2009 (BST)