UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Grim s/2006-04-07 Promotion

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Administration » Sysop Archives » Grim s » 2006-04-07 Promotion


Browse the Sysop Archives
Bureaucrat Promotions | Demotions | Misconduct (TBD) | Promotions | Re-Evaluations
2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019

This page is an archive of Grim s's Promotions candidacy. If you wish to speak with this candidate, please use their Talk page. If you believe that the candidate has abused the abilities and privileges granted them by this promotion, please report them for misconduct.

Grim s

Been here since November and have amassed probably more than 2000 edits, though a good number were lost in the December and March purges. Major contributions have been the streamlining of the Groups page and the Reconstruction of the Previous Days suggestions page, where i have been working for just over a month cycling out the suggestions page in a timely manner. I am also working on rebuilding peer rejected, but thats another story.

The reason i am applying is not because i want any power, it is because i want to serve the community better. The recent prolonged vandal attack changed my mind about my stance on this subject (Regarding promotions), as i was quite happy to wander off and let others do the heavy lifting, serving in my own little way on the suggestions pages, but after seeing that idiot run amok, i have come to the conclusion that there should be someone with mod powers on at all times if only because such idiots should not be permitted to go on such a rampage.

I may not get along well with everyone on the wiki (Specifically: Skeletor and Amazing i dont get along with), but at least i have the guts to admit when im wrong, back down and apologise (Specifically when i got into a fight with Timid Dan and Blahblahblah, and wrongly accused one of deleting votes and called the other an idiot. I believe this can be found in Archive 8).

I was, until recently, involved in a couple of conflicts with other groups regarding the issue of Zerging, where i was taking part in exposing groups who use such tactics. With the exception of the case in arbitration, i am completely finished with such edit wars, using a seperate page to out such groups, listing the evidence against them and allowing them to defend themselves on the talk page.

I may act in a harsh manner at times, but that is only because i feel strongly about certain subjects (Specifically adherence to rules). I may not be the best person there is for this, but at least im willing to go out and do a job i see needs doing, even if it is reluctantly.

In any event, i place myself at your mercy. --Grim s 11:52, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Edit: - Before i get asked (If i ever do), i do not intend to focus on arbitration issues, instead focusing on maintenance of the wiki (Deletions, speedydeletions, rapid reversions and swift banning of active vandals). Just an FYI. It may affect how people vouch, and it is something i should have included earlier. --Grim s 13:09, 7 April 2006 (BST)

  • I have some slight missgivings about this but I am prepared to vouch for Grim, after seeing how he reacted to the recent vandal attack. He did an excellent job reverting the pages and reacted far quicker than I could have done. We really need someone like him as a mod.--The General 12:19, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • The only major issue I have with Grim is his use of language, particularly against new users. Having said that, he has done a lot for this wiki, and I would vouch for him if he promises that as a mod, he'll be more polite to the wiki posters, particularly to new users. --Nov W!, Talk 12:47, 7 April 2006 (BST)
    • Thats fair. I dont recall being that way towards wiki newbies though. --Grim s 12:55, 7 April 2006 (BST)
      • I take it then that he has promised to be polite, particularly towards new users. I will vouch for him. --Nov W!, Talk 13:06, 7 April 2006 (BST)
        • You would be correct. --Grim s 13:12, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • Sure. I suppose. He's certainly prompt. MaulMachine 13:13, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • I'll vouch for him.--David Suzuki 13:07, 7 April 2006 (GMT)
  • I believe that the wiki could use someone who clearly recognises the responsibility involved and who will be available to deal with vandalism promptly. I'll vouch for him. Mortificant 15:21, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • Grim has been a important source in fixing and in maintaining the wiki so I do think he should be a moderator. --Technerd 15:54, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • Slight Vouch Proven to be capable of doing the work without asking or whining for it before hand. If he voices his opinions in a more humble tone as a moderator he will be a great one. Until then, menh... --Karlsbad 18:24, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • Yea, just tone it down a bit and you're golden. --Zaruthustra-Mod 16:59, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • Certainly not the most easy going of all users, and not completly free of drama. That said is is also one of the most senior participant of the wiki, well versed in the rules, and has shown unrivaled interest in maintaining this wiki. May be one of the top three active people in urban dead all around, and in this wiki. While his reasoning is sometimes a bit partisan, his judgement is without fault. although his conclusions are a bit severe at times. I am somewhat ambivilant but leaning positive.--Vista W! 18:56, 7 April 2006 (BST) Reading were Grim want to be active I wholy support his promotion, as it will give him easier ways to continue and expand his work on the wiki.
  • Grim's got my vote. --Kibbs 19:59, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • Vouching because he is Grim--Irishmen 20:22, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • The WCDZ has had a few quarrels with him, but he's a good wiki-goer, and respects the rules. --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:14, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  • No support from here. An accepted and supported troll is still a troll. Grim is always involved in any disputes I am involved in, but unlike me he jumps into them willfully and is never the target. Only causes more flaming and grief whenever he has been involved. -- Amazing 06:24, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Id been waiting for you to show up, and i had a fairly good idea of what you would say. FYI: You are the only person to consider me a troll, something for you to think about. --Grim s 06:31, 8 April 2006 (BST)
      • I have. Basically you're the parasite that picks a target who's already being savaged. That way you get to flame and troll and people still innocently misread you as a good person. -- Amazing 06:45, 8 April 2006 (BST)
        • Bugger off, he's my arch-nemesis. Get your own. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:50, 8 April 2006 (BST)
          • Yeah? Well he's MY aggrivating pus-filled ass boil. And secret girlfriend. -- Amazing 06:54, 8 April 2006 (BST)
            • Is it any wonder why people dont ever support you Amazing? Oh well. Im off. I dont want to let you provoke me into a fight now, do i? (What with all that provocative language you have there) --Grim s 07:10, 8 April 2006 (BST)
              • Night. Hope you recover from the amnesia you recieved after trolling me in your vote on my Moderator bid. -- Amazing 07:16, 8 April 2006 (BST)
            • Amazing, your foot is going deep into your mouth again. Same goes for Z. And Grim, I'm undecided.--Mia Kristos 07:15, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • for -gimrch is te seks --Mia K (sotss) 05:49, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  • Grim gets my thumbs-up too. --Vanankyte 08:47, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • Grim gets the menial work done most of the time. I see no reason why not. -Nubis A.R.S.E. 08:50, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • You've got to give grim props for having the balls to go for this. but I dont think that i can trust him enought to be a moderator yet.--Deathnut RAF|W! 19:10, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • I feel as if Grim would be a good candidate in a month or two, after he has a chance to prove that he really is changing his conduct. However, I cannot really support him at this time. --LibrarianBrent 19:15, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Fair enough. I would like to point out that the changes in question are rather minor ones, and in my view inconsequential. Furthermore, i did mention that if (gods forbid) i did get modded, i wouldnt stick my nose into areas where personality conflicts would make a difference. Oh well. You are welcome to your opinion. --Grim s 08:19, 9 April 2006 (BST)
      • Question: Wouldn't that inhibit your abilities/actions as a Moderator? -- Amazing 18:35, 9 April 2006 (BST)
        • No. Moderators usually place themselves as they see fit, doing some jobs and not others, letting other moderators do those jobs. I have simply specified which i would do if i got mod status beforehand. Basically all this would mean would be that i would not get involved in the grey areas of the vandal banning page, or arbitrate the Misconduct page unless specifically asked by the participants. Deletions, standard maintenance, and the banning and warning of active vandals would all be well within the bounds i already mentioned at the end of my application. Any further questions? --Grim s 19:35, 9 April 2006 (BST)
          • If you would be willing to restrict yourself to those aforementioned noncontroversial areas, I'd be in full support. --LibrarianBrent 23:21, 10 April 2006 (BST)
  • I vote yes. He cares about the wiki and I trust him. --Jacquie 20:40, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  • I'm going to say Yes. He is already doing a lot of wiki maintenance, and has been doing quite well on it. --Brizth W! 19:41, 9 April 2006 (BST)
  • Grim works hard for this here Wiki. Also, given how much he did on those vandal attacks a bit ago, he seems like he would do a good job of stopping things like that pretty quickly if he held a ban hammer. -Banana Bear4 19:54, 10 April 2006 (BST)
  • The standard questionnaire... -- Odd Starter talkModW! 02:49, 12 April 2006 (BST)
    • What Moderator duties do you see yourself focusing on, as a rule?
        • Deletions, Speedy Deletions, Banning active vandals, the non contriversial vandal banning sections (Such as adbots). --Grim s 05:38, 12 April 2006 (BST)
    • How do you react to criticism online?
        • I club them and eat thier bones! Actually, i take constructive criticism very well (Even in the past asking for it). Unconstructive criticism (Along the lines of "You suck") is usually ignored or treated with derision (I have to have some fun every now and then). --Grim s 05:38, 12 April 2006 (BST)
    • What is your current attitude to the moderators, as a group?
        • Honestly, i dont have an opinion of you all as a group. You are all just people, who have some extra responsibilities and the power to fulfil those responsibilities in my eyes. --Grim s 05:38, 12 April 2006 (BST)
    • Have you had any previous position of responsibility in any other online communities, and if so, elaborate?
        • Yes, but im going to be intentionally vague about one or two of them. Darwin Awards Forum. Brief stint as a moderator for one of the subforums. Lasted a couple of weeks before i resigned to go on hiatus. This was back in 2003. Another forum i was a moderator for almost a year. I no longer post there and it was hit late last year by a hacker who deleted the database. I am a moderator on the RRF forum as well. I also lead one UD group (The Drunken Dead and i am a commander in the RRF. --Grim s 05:38, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Hell no! I can't recall the last time Grim has said anything happy or nice. I predict that, if he was promoted, fully 1/3 of the users on the wiki would be banned as soon as he could manage it. --Cyberbob240 02:52, 12 April 2006 (BST)
    • Says the person who has done nothing but attack me since he arrived at this wiki a couple of days ago. See my talk page for more examples of this ones shining acts. --Grim s 03:59, 12 April 2006 (BST)
    • Says the person who has done nothing but attack me since I arrived at this wiki a couple of days ago. See my talk page for more examples of this ones shining acts. --Cyberbob240 04:06, 12 April 2006 (BST)
      • Girls! GIRLS! You're both pretty, stop fighting. No one likes a cat-fight.--Karlsbad 04:31, 12 April 2006 (BST)
        • Could we please limit comments on this page to useful ones? I tried to point out a problem i saw in Cyberbob's manner on the page, as he was being far too aggressive in his opinions and in how he was conducting himself which was creating friction. When i gave him some advice he decided to attack me for it (This is found on both our talk pages, you need to look at both to get all the parts). Shortly afterwards i decided i didnt want to be dragged into a fight and bid him farewell. Shortly after this he broke a rule and i reported him for it (Who it was played absolutely no part) and this morning i wake up to find him attempting to "zing" me on my talk page here. --Grim s 06:51, 12 April 2006 (BST) Edit - Whoops. It seems he has turned what i said to him into some sort of monument to his hatred for me, and has been antagonising me all across the wiki, creating a template to get at me. It appears i tried to help a troll. --Grim s 05:46, 18 April 2006 (BST)
          • I wonder if the irony is lost on you. Is it? -- Amazing 05:48, 18 April 2006 (BST)
            • I like the template so much i have it on both my userpage and my talk page. I think its funny, but thats besides the point. --Grim s 06:29, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • Vouch. Conndraka 18:57, 12 April 2006 (BST) As long as his anti-Zerging activities are clearly labled as his own and not as those of a MOD.
  • I will vote for Grim S.He has done a great job of maintaining the wiki.--Penance 20:51, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Reckon not. Anyone who has recently or regularly gotten worked up over anything on the Internet (especially petty rules) is a bad candidate. Whether or not you were the good guy is irrelevant, the very act is grounds for rejection. Sorry, bucko. Mods should be stoics and Kantian individuals. --Ron Burgundy 02:14, 15 April 2006 (BST)
    • So i am forbidden to be passionate about anything? Let me see... Im against in game cheating and i expose those who i find doing it, i also report those i find in violation of the rules on the wiki. I guess that makes me a bad candindate then. Oh well. Wait a second... --Grim s 05:47, 15 April 2006 (BST)
      • Mods should not be passionate because passions cloud judgment. As for the rules, you can love them all you like, but they are not a transcendent, ultimate good. The wiki rules exist so people can all get along. A passionate and strictly legalistic interpretation of those rules prevents people from getting along by enforcing a cold sterility on human interaction. Thus, the rules lose their purpose. That is, by placing rules above utility, you destroy their essence. If you don't realize this, perhaps your passions are clouding your judgments. Har har. Either that or you should read you some Hume. --Ron Burgundy 08:25, 15 April 2006 (BST)
        • Perhaps you should look at the rules a bit more carefully, and what areas i already said i would look after, and you will find that whatever point you may have had otherwise withers and dies, as a Moderator cannot render a verdict on a case he or she puts up on any page (vandal banning, deletions, speedydeletions, etc), thus even if i did feel one thing was a violation of the rules, and reported it on the appropriate page (Which has to be done except in the case of an active vandal deleting pages) i would not be able to act on it. Furthermore, i have specifically stated that i was not going to get involved in anything where they is a sizable grey area (See the end of my application, my answer to Amazing under LibrarianBrents comment, and my response to the questions from Odd Starter for more details). It is actually possible to accept responsibility and do some of the chores while leaving others to those who are more experienced in such matters. While i can understand your position, i fail to see how what you fear applies to these circumstances. Also, i believe i should inform you that i am more than capable of setting aside such passions where required to make judgement without them. --Grim s 09:46, 15 April 2006 (BST)
          • Well hot damn, I thought mods were more powerful! I'm sorry to say, though, that I think my point still stands. To repeat, by suggesting that something breaks the rules in a heavy-handed manner, you've already alienated the offender and broken down human interaction, thus subverting the rule, itself. This takes place regardless of whether you're able to render a verdict or in any way enforce your suggestion. Interaction and tranquility break down and the rule is subverted by the act of heavy-handed suggestion, not by the ultimate verdict. A good mod is able to suggest rules be enforced with tact- dare I say Class?- in place of heavy-handedness. Not getting involved in gray areas is commendable, but it's outside my argument. Also, I certainly hope that you can put your passions aside because you clearly want the job very badly (a good thing for a candidate) and, looking at some of the other votes, seem to be pretty well set for it. --Ron Burgundy 20:50, 15 April 2006 (BST)
            • You would have a point if you could show where i have done anything in a heavy handed manner, at the moment it is about as valid as me claiming the moon is made of cheese and the moon rock claims are merely a capitalist conspiracy to overthrow the mole people. As it stands that is just a sole assertion, standing all alone, with nary a scrap of support to be found. In any case, i simply do not recognise the validity of your reasoning. You claim that enforcing the rules in particular ways within the rules undermines the rules themselves. While i can understand the alienation that may arise from someone strongly and suddenly enforcing the rules, the conclusion that it undermines the rules simply makes no sense. It is very much a non sequitur as far as i have been able to determine. --Grim s 18:12, 18 April 2006 (BST)
              • The rules have a purpose and that purpose is to promote healthy interaction (premise). A legalistic reading of the rules promotes unhealthy interaction (premise). Because healthy interaction is the purpose of the rules, a legalistic reading of the rules destroys their purpose. Therefore, the rules become rules in and of themselves; their essence is destroyed! Logically written, that's "the purpose of x is y, doing z creates -y, if -y then -x, if z then -x." Rules have no value without their essence to anyone but the most legalistic of people. If they did, the most absurd rule you can dream up would have as much value as the most pragmatic. It's perfectly logical, buddy! What you want to do is attack my premises. As for the whole "heavy handed" thing, you said yourself that "i also report those i find in violation of the rules on the wiki" immediately after talking about passion. Seems to me like you're passionate about the rules, with no mention of their purpose, and that's problematic.  :/ --Ron Burgundy 19:10, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  • I'll Vouch for him, concerning the last Vandal attacks it was nice to see somebody else working like crazy besides me to Revert the damage. Besides that I think he has made quite a few golden edits here and there and is putting a great efford in making this wiki a good one. But I have to admit he can be a bit too harsh towards new users, he should give them some slack sometimes and form his 'critique' in a more friendly way.--Vykos 21:17, 15 April 2006 (BST)
    • If you'll all just look above, you'll see a prime example of how easily Grim s gets pissed off. Is this REALLY the kind of moderator we want, one who bans people willy-nilly at the slightest touch of an argument? --Cyberbob240CDF 17:24, 17 April 2006 (BST)
      • Grim has in no way shown that he would abuse his position as moderator. He has shown that he can perform important functions for the wiki, and has shown himself to be one of the more active members of the wiki. He REALLY is the kind of moderator we need. -Banana Bear4 06:34, 18 April 2006 (BST)
        • Quite the opposite. He's a hot-head who regularly got into flame wars and still can't hold his tongue, even when making a bid for Modship. -- Amazing 07:11, 18 April 2006 (BST)
          • You know... I remember someone else who tried to bid for Moderator who regularly got into flame wars and still can't hold his tongue... If only I could remember who it was... -Nubis A.R.S.E. 07:41, 18 April 2006 (BST)
            • Personally, im wondering why this extremely vocal minority of people (Two people, really) is insisting on attempting to sabotage my application with blatant lies. Apparently im supposed to be engaged in flamewars, be pissed off. I ask this: Why was i not informed of this? Which flamewars am i in? I would certainly remember a flamewar. I would also know if im angered or not. Personally im baffled as to why you two hate me so much, i mean, i can guess at Amazings motives, but Cyberbob is just a complete mystery to me. --Grim s 08:44, 18 April 2006 (BST)
              • Actually Grim, I'm curious as well; both are alike in that that possess ideosyncraticies in their ways of demonstratively never using the preview button. If it wasn't for the toady-attitude that Bob gives 'zing- see his comments about the Arbitration/Grim s target, etc- it would be likely thought that they were the same person. --Karlsbad 21:01, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • I support Grim s bid to be a moderator. He may be passionate but has always been fair in what he does. --Technerd 17:48, 17 April 2006 (BST) You already vouched for me up above. --Grim s 21:00, 17 April 2006 (BST)
    • Fair? I suppose so, but only to people he likes. To those he doesn't... well, there's always other places one can go, isn't there? --Cyberbob240CDF 18:06, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • I support Grim S his Moderation bid. -Nubis A.R.S.E. 14:25, 19 April 2006 (BST) Already vouched mate. --Grim s 07:34, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • ...just like I do. I hereby vouch for him. G F J 15:07, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  • I thought I already vouched for grim, but I guess not. Grim s for mod. - CthulhuFhtagn 00:24, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  • I also support grim, for what it's worth. I've seen him reverting like mad during vandal outbreaks, and he does a good job on maintaining stuff. I think he would make a great mod--Bermudez 23:00, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  • Grim is the kind of person you'd hate to vote for or against, as he is probably one of the best contributors to the wiki (if not the best) yet he seems to... lack in the diplomatic virtues... Still, it's been done before that mods who had this problem were demoted back to normal users, and if Grim wants to take the risk, I'll risk vouching for him. Especially since he seems to want to stay away from problematic places--McArrowni 03:09, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • One of the more intelligent and thoughtful people it has been my privilege to know. Vouch. Petrosjko 07:45, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • I support Grim as well as his bid for Moderation. He understands the wiki well and despite people blatantly sabotaging him, he seems to be relatively supported. He contributes a lot to the UD community. Caz 07:21, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • Grim puts a lot into this game and this wiki. I also vouch for him. --Jack Destruct 07:50, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • While Grim is highly active on the wiki and while he did do a lot during the recent vandal attacks, I feel he may be a little too biased to be a good moderator. --Aiden H 4H 08:30, 21 April 2006 (BST)
    • You're not alone there, Aiden. Grim works very hard, but holds too many grudges. --Cyberbob240CDF | Arb 08:34, 21 April 2006 (BST)
    • Would you care to show me where i have been biased? And Cyberbob, would you be so kind as to stop slandering me in an attempt to sabotage my application? You are already on notice from the moderators for repeatedly attacking me in an unprovoked manner. --Grim s 09:26, 21 April 2006 (BST)
      • I'm not slandering you. I'm simply showing my agreement with someone else. And if you'll just read that comment, you'll see that I give you credit for all the work you've done. --Cyberbob240CDF | Arb 09:30, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • I support Grim for his bid for Moderation. -Token Black Man 08:35, 21 April 2006 (BST)
    • You were asked to do this on the desensitised forum, weren't you? --Cyberbob240CDF | Arb 08:52, 21 April 2006 (BST)
      • Cyberbob, it will be better to just let it go. Your coming close to accusation there. --Prosperina 8:54 21 April 2006 (BST)
        • Even if he was it wouldn't matter as token Token Black Man is also a user on this wiki and thus may voice his opinion about moderatorship here. the actual weight of a opinion is measured agianst the givers involvement on this wiki as this is not a vote. I fail to see the relavance Cyberbob240--Vista W! 09:24, 21 April 2006 (BST)
          • It wasn't an accusation; just curiosity. --Cyberbob240CDF | Arb 09:27, 21 April 2006 (BST)
            • then go to the persons talk page, and don't ask unrelevant questions here as this is not the place for it I'm afraid.--Vista W! 09:37, 21 April 2006 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements