UDWiki talk:Administration/Sysop Archives/Revenant/2011-03-29 Promotion

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


  • question - what's changed since your last bid? not a lot by the looks of it. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 02:08, 29 March 2011 (BST)
    I am active on the wiki, have the free time to work on wiki projects, and have not been nominated as a joke by Grim. As I said in my bid above. Got any questions I haven't already answered? Oh, and I've now got mobile internets access, so I can edit and (assuming this bid goes well) psyop while out, too. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 03:13, 29 March 2011 (BST)
    If you want to use your free time helping out the UD community, why do you have to be an op? To be honest and not as offensive as I probably sound, the only reason that springs to mind is that there's some sort of lol quota on a forum somewhere which needs meeting. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 04:17, 29 March 2011 (BST)
    That's also on the to-do list, TBH. And I'll respond more fully when I get the chance, just heading out the door ATM. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 04:26, 29 March 2011 (BST)
    That's cool, no hurry. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 05:19, 29 March 2011 (BST)
    Also, I have another question. How come when you (and other non-'wiki addicts', if you're cool speaking on their behalf) run for promotion, you feel the need to meatpuppet the crap out of the bid? Before anyone judges please note I'm of course not against meatpuppeting, nor for it, I'm just curious why you do it when A/PM is a system that is designed to diametrically oppose the influence of meatpuppets? -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 12:31, 29 March 2011 (BST)
    Eh, none of my vouches were meatpuppets, except for the one that couldn't read and voted me by mistake. Or, if they were puppets then I had no knowledge of it. --Ash  |  T  |  яя  | 14:34, 29 March 2011 (BST)
    "Meatpuppet" is such an ugly word. This may come as a shock to you, but the wiki is hardly the centre of the UD-verse. In fact, most people play quite happily without consulting it much if at all. Instead, I would say that I am attempting to reach out to the broader Urban Dead community and encourage participation from different demographics. In fact, I can name at least one person who has returned from at least ~3 years of absence due to my linking this on Facebook. How can that be a bad thing? ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 15:13, 29 March 2011 (BST)
    So basically meatpuppet is an ugly word, but you basically deconstruct your actions as getting people who don't use the wiki much at all but know what it is, to bring support to your bid where they would otherwise be spending that time (for example ~3 years) away from the wiki? Doesn't sound like meatpuppeting at all. You didn't even answer my question either? -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 22:27, 29 March 2011 (BST)
    I don't think he voted for me – he can't stand the wiki – just started playing again. Also, like I said, UD community and UD Wiki community have overlap but are by no means identical. If you only post on the wiki you disenfranchise those who do not spend much time on here but still have an interest in favour of the more vocal minority. Also, I thought I sorta answered it in one of my other responses below? ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 22:59, 29 March 2011 (BST)
    Wait, so the reason you get people here in hordes is not to dogpile your promotions bid, but to extend other metagaming media to ud players who don't wiki much? -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 04:26, 30 March 2011 (BST)
    Have you ever thought that there's a reason a lot of people avoid the wiki like the plague? These people know me and what I stand for. I'm not telling them what to write, as I'm sure you can see. I'd point to Toast's Against as an example but he's busy avoiding the place like despite my encouragement. Grr! Argh! *shaking fist* ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 05:02, 30 March 2011 (BST)
    I couldn't care less about why people avoid the wiki TBH. I would like for his place to be used lots, and I am always trying to help out people who have a keen interest in the place where I can, but if people don't come here that's just how it is. Having you ask them once every month to come here and support someone/thing they don't care about won't improve the situation, lest you being promoted. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 05:50, 30 March 2011 (BST)
    Yes, I can see thatIcon rolleyes.gif ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 01:24, 31 March 2011 (BST)
    I said people who have a keen interest in the place, not people who come here cause they're asked and fail the one thing they have to do right to have their vote counted. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 07:39, 31 March 2011 (BST)
    I have no idea who that is and as far as I know I've never spoken to them before. (Sorry if you're someone I should know, Keira!) I was just being helpful and friendly to someone who clearly has not done much wiki-ing before but is just as clearly interested. You know, serving the wiki community, like being a sysop is supposed to be about. :) ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 22:27, 31 March 2011 (BST)
    Wow. So, you just went and undid all my effort to help that person out because you want to swing the vote your way? (See what I'm doing right here, casting aspersions on your motives? The difference is, I think you genuinely believe it when you do it.) That's, uh… that's something, right there. Icon rolleyes.gif ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 23:18, 31 March 2011 (BST)
    Are you capable of reading rules? The rules say the only valid votes MUST end with a four tilde timestamp. If they can't manage that, then it's illegitimate. You cannot also replace it with anything that will suffice a four-tilde timestamp done by the user who is making the vote. If I voted for Liberal last week, by smearing my shit all over the ballot paper, would it have counted if you just wiped the shit away and place the vote I wanted yourself? Nooooo. And you'll also notice the rules that it says "it will be stricken by a moderator". It is my duty, I have to do it to every instance of illegal signage and I do- not just to ones that don't vote the same way I do (check the history you idiotic bellend). Couldn't give less of a shit if CK got in. But on that topic, seriously? Am I a devil because I do my job and it stops a vote going against what I voted? Does it make me a saint if they voted the same way then? Holy shit your idea of bias is as childish as Cybebob's. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 02:15, 1 April 2011 (BST)
    I can read; can you? I repeat: show me in the rules. (Hint: It's not there.) ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 03:33, 1 April 2011 (BST)
    Template:HistoricalVotingRules --VVV RPGMBCWS 03:41, 1 April 2011 (BST)
    Thank you, TripleU, for having actually the decency to provide a fucking link instead of vague references. Grr! Argh! *shaking fist* Don't know how I missed that – well, it's not in the rules at the top, must've skimmed past – but it's stupid bureaucratic bullshit and needs to be changed. I'll add that to the to-do list. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 07:42, 1 April 2011 (BST)
    Also, emailed the user in question as a courtesy, since not everyone has talk page notifications. As she did go to the effort of voting, it'd be a shame to see that go to waste because of obsession with red tape. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 07:44, 1 April 2011 (BST)
    Sorry for thinking "As is said in the rulebox to the right of your vote" is not good enough for something so obvious -.- -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 12:43, 1 April 2011 (BST)
    I see nothing in the rules for conducting voting (at the top of the page, which I linked) which requires that template be displayed, but I already conceded this point. PROTIP: Learn to stop arguing after you've won; nobody likes a sore winner. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 01:32, 2 April 2011 (BST)
    -___________________________- -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 05:48, 1 April 2011 (BST)
    It means that a very very large part of the player base knows and supports Revenant and is willing to vouch for him. Stop trying to make out like being respected by most/a large part of the game community means he's not trustworthy, it's shit and it's a part of how the wiki's lost the community. I mean shit, the guy is a mod on all four major metagame boards somehow and you think he's untrustworthy? --Karekmaps?! 05:09, 30 March 2011 (BST)
    I ctrl+f'd this entire conversation and didn't find the word "trust" or "untrustworthy" in any of the above dialogue, so I don't know what you're talking about. Didn't find Karek either, odd. Can he be trusted? Why not. Will he be able to do the job properly? Eeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhh. The only time I've seen Revenant deal with rules and policy on this wiki he's tried appallingly to just rules-lawyer his way through the argument to get his way. Granted, sometimes he stands down if told/proven/argued to be wrong. But some times, he chucks colossal shitties, then creates drama across multiple admin pages just incase the fallout wasn't crap enough, let alone the crying we had to read when he wanted to be deescalated too. Ugh. Given, I haven't had him act like this since, but given a new conflict of interest come along I won't hold my breath for a changed man, sorry Rev. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 05:47, 30 March 2011 (BST)
    You quoted me in your ruling for that case and let me tell you, there was nothing wrong or drama-full about his arguments there. They actually bring up some good points that a more rationally minded group probably could have used for a discussion on the extensions of specific vandalism rules and precedents and their relevance to blatantly meta roleplaying. In that case specifically he was escalated for something that we normally always used for people trying to recruit for groups without any basis as to interest not users who have entered into a discussion or vote being swayed to change it(which we've actually always overlooked when done on promotions, policy, etc. when the user had already voted and thus shown involvement in discussion). Well that and claiming that a blatant joke about a user that would never ever ever be repromoted or, probably, unbanned being nominated for promotion as a sysop. That's crap and no more vandalism, drama mongering, or bad judgement than, say, a promotion attempt by a recently escalated vandal who was involved in a poorly handled sysop ruling that partially mocks the reasons for one of the sysops involved. The only drama in either of those is generated largely by the user who didn't assume good faith or good humor and when that's relevant to the reason why he would be beneficial to the team(he doesn't start at the assumption that all rules violations are vandalism) that's nothing but a good reason to promote him. It's like if we'd denied promoting you because you knew and were involved in some of the dramas of Jed and Nallan simply because we'd decided that you're magically incapable of understanding or enforcing rules. --Karekmaps?! 06:03, 30 March 2011 (BST)
    The arguments behind that case are irrelevant in this context (though I feel forced to, for the 4000th time, discredit 80% of the personal shit you just said on the basis of the sysop team are the ones that ruled on the case rather than the one man who brought it there and didn't rule). If he thinks he's wrong there are more mature ways to deal with it than immature. He hit about 75% of the immature ways head on. If you're going to butt in with conversations and try and argue over the subsequent tangents can you please stop and address some of the things I said? Otherwise please just deal with this elsewhere like my talk or talk:A/PM or let Revenant deal with it here himself. Please. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 06:25, 30 March 2011 (BST)
    How have I not done that, you brought up that discussion as immature and drama mongering because as an involved party, and the person who brought the case, you viewed it as such. You brought it up as your reason for why you feel he can't do the job. You brought up the Grim case as him drama mongering even, I pointed out it wasn't drama but a very blatant joke. You brought up claims of him meatpuppeting, I pointed out that he's trusted by these communities and people being willing to vouch for him from communities he's moderated is the exact opposite of meatpuppeting and is the point of this page. You brought up concerns about his ability to do the job because of these cases, I pointed out that we had the same concerns about you but faith enough that you knew the rules and had a valuable viewpoint that we, while not always in agreement with, thought would be a useful contribution to the administrative discussion. Put all of the personal crap aside, he's a good levelheaded user that's shown himself trusted by the community and able to work with diverse groups of the playerbase quite amicably, that alone should be reason enough.--Karekmaps?! 06:38, 30 March 2011 (BST)
    How can I possibly be the biased one when you attempt to discredit the ENTIRE event as not drama mongering (or, stupider yet, not drama at all) because it was in good humour? What? Why the hell do you think I'm not going to promote him just because I think/know he'll do a shit job? Why the fuck are you still even here, can you go 10 contribs without trying to butt heads with me via walls of texts over shit that has nothing to do with you? Are you going to go for promotions now so you can just have your say via one bolded word and be done with it, rather than waste my time with your fucking arguing? Holy fucking god Karek.
    Back onto the topic, I don't think you have the right definition of meatpuppet to work off. Google it, if Rev recruited them simply for this function it is most definitely meatpuppetting. Again, I'm pretty indifferent to whether he does it or not (I am one of the two people on this wiki who has the power to nullify every single one of them if I so wished and no that is not a threat or prediction of my future actions so don't bother complaining about it), I was just curious as to why he should bother doing it, then tried to make a point of how hollow his excuse was and its righteousness. Again, to re-iterate, if they wouldn't have given input on this without a nudge from Revenant, it's meatpuppeting, regardless of good faith by the users or their genuinity (both of which, I agree with you, are genuine). I also discussed the drama mongering above too so I guess I'm done with this reply. awaiting another 1,900 characters of time waste -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 06:51, 30 March 2011 (BST)
    I guess the standard for claiming I'm around just to butt heads with someone has gotten pretty small if all it takes these days is to try and have a discussion relevant to one A/VB case about how it was dealt with and one promotions bid about how you're distorting his actions with your views of them/how he's shown community trust. It's actually kinda sad really, there was a time where you were at least sorta reasonable enough to listen to someone outside your head. --Karekmaps?! 07:06, 30 March 2011 (BST)
    You're breakin my heart. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 07:17, 30 March 2011 (BST)
    For the record, DDR, I still consider that a bullshit call and a glaring example of assuming bad faith when none was intended. Another reason I am making this bid is I think we could use some more considered opinions on the sysop team with experience in a broader variety of wiki (and other) environments who realise just how hostile and insular this environment is. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 22:27, 31 March 2011 (BST)
    You mean more people to bail out the cool klub? As if the team hadn't become a drama fest with all the newbies coming in already -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 02:21, 1 April 2011 (BST)
    The only “cool klub” I can think of on this wiki is your mates, “2 Cool”, but I'm guessing you meant something else seeing as I haven't seem them around for a while. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 07:42, 1 April 2011 (BST)