UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/System Operators, which ones do you trust

Kevan

I'd like him to be on the list, but won't add him myself so as not to call anyone's wrath. If the point of this page is just eroding the reputations of the demote-able Sysops, then you wouldn't want it added, but I think that expressing our opinions on the wiki's owner as a Sysop may have some value. --Starplatinum 07:47, 15 May 2008 (BST)

As long as the criticism remains constructive, and the discussion does not turn into a free-for-all attack on certain people then I can only see this as a good thing. Apart from anything else it gives us feedback on what we may be doing wrong. It's an interesting concept, and should be useful, But I can see it degenerating into a series of personal attacks and vendettas unfortunately! Hope it doesn't though, cos the concept's sound.--Seventythree^Talk 09:05, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Pointless IMHO, i mean who cares what any of us think of him? At least when expressing opinion about the demotables can do something - discussing Kevan is like discussing God, it doesn't lead anywhere and we all end up pissy at the one's who we disagree with.--xoxo 09:31, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Just keep in mind that the entire THING is pointless because It sort of doesn't matter what we think of the sysops in an official sense, as long as they get the job done. DanceDanceRevolution 08:12, 16 May 2008 (BST)

The point was to get a fair sounding of how trusted each so called trusted user is. The main reason i thought of it is because hagnat was waving it around as a justification for some of the shit he was doing on a policy vote, and i wanted to see if he actually was trusted, then i figured i may as well apply it to everyone for fairness, doubly so because im curious as to what you all think of my performance. As for kevan, im not adding him (or the other immunes from demotion), simply because they dont actually do anything. We dont have a say. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:37, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Abstain

Before this gets too far in I would like to see an abstain category added in. Some Sysops don't go near the areas where judgement calls cause problems and as such "trust" is not so much of an issue. In any event Trust should not be a requirement for the majority of a sysop duties!--Honestmistake 09:32, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Just don't vote for the ones you want to abstain from. It is the meaning of the word, after all. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:33, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Wrong answer. I mean it came from cyberbob, so of course it's stupid... Anyway... Someone could have valuable input but not be able, or want to decide Yes or No. Honestmistake has a valid point. But it might be too late to turn back now... --WanYao 13:11, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Dammit Wan stop reading my mind ;) I think the problem is that I trust pretty much all those I have voted no for but only for the technical part of the job. When it comes to the more mod like powers of punishment I am far less certain on many cases. Karek for instance does a great job and I only ever clash with him on A/VB or Policy discussion issues, to a certain extent I would say the same for Grim (except he complicates things by doing a fantastic job on everything but the 3 or 4 cases we strongly disagree on!) If I abstain by making no comment that gets lost rather than making a (hopefully useful) point--Honestmistake 13:17, 15 May 2008 (BST)

har har har har har har har har har har --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)

I didnt add abstain mainly because it would give an out for people to say something while at the same time appeasing people. Id rather the black and white yes/no with explainations. That said, if there is enough support for a category, ill add it when i get off work tomorrow evening. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:32, 15 May 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry, Grim. I didn't see this before I moved stuff. It was pissing me off that abstain votes with no No justification were being counted as NO. I will take my lumps for it. Besides, it seems like it was only Wan Yao making crappy Abstain votes that slipped under the No. Maybe if you don't feel one way or the other you .. don't comment one way or the other since this is just a discussion to get FEELINGS rather than "votes"? Dunno - radical concept here. Again, I'm sorry, Grim, for being an asshole. It's a bad habit. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 03:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)

I saw, and was writing something about it on your talk, but got distracted by hunger and accidentally closed the window (Force of habit). Since there was no real strong push for an abstain position here, and because i came to the conclusion that an abstain section would be abused by people who want to criticise friends they dont really trust, but dont want to hurt "Your positions on X, Y, and Z are bad, but you do a good job elsewhere so..." i decided to keep it out. Besides, in this circumstance, abstain is just another way of saying no, albeit not as strongly. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:09, 17 May 2008 (BST)

I think abstain is a good idea... people are already using it even though there isn't a section for it. :/ --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:05, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Abstain might be a good category. Not abstain excatly, maybe call it neutral or something? I'd consider it as a category if someone doen't feel one way or another about a sysop, hasn't seen much of their contributions or, like Funt's contribution feels the sysop in question has some good and some bad points. Somtehing to consider, certainly. I wouldn't call it abstain, undecided maybe, but it would certainly be where people put an abstain comment while also covering the areas I've outlined. All in all I think this is quite worthwhile. --Seventythree^Talk 15:38, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Oh, and as another point, should Sysops be taking part in this or leaving it up to the rest of the community?--Seventythree^Talk 15:40, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Well, they are part of the community you know. They should have just as much a voice in their co-workers as the rest of us.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:42, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah, but they are also the group in the community under discussion.... I'm just not sure that sysops should be commenting on this. It'd be how the sysops see themselves as opposed to how the wiki community does.....--Seventythree^Talk 15:46, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Sysops are also part of this community :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:50, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah, I know, and feel free to add comment if you like, It's just I personaly won't be. It just seems a bit wrong to me somehow.... I just feel like we should leave it up to the community to say what they want to say and make their opinions heard, and like it or not but the opinions and such of sysops do carry a lot of weight, and I can't help but feel it might influence the outcome more than a little.--Seventythree^Talk 16:05, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Abstain is probably the wrong name for a third section but so are neutral and undecided... How about a nice simple Other? Oh and quick, this is already getting messy with the yes no only options getting things tangled--Honestmistake 15:50, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Discussion

AHLG (Sysop)

1. No - Weak willed, doesnt know the rules and guidelines, and is far, far too chummy with people, to the point of twisting the guidelines to try and let his pals off. He has made several terrible calls in A/VB, some of which were only barely overruled by people who decided to see sense. While he may be trustworthy to do mundane no brainer chores like deletions, moves and protections, i have zero faith in his ability to make objective impartial calls on any vandalism or misconduct case, especially when in one of the more recent hagnat ones his sole contribution was to question my motivations for bringing the case, describing them as "suspicious". I do not take kindly to slander. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:18, 18 May 2008 (BST)

   It helps if you tell the whole side of the story before making accusations. You say my sole reason was to question your motives on that misconduct case when that is not the case. That is a lie. If you actually took the time read the second half of the comment, you could easily have seen that I was discussing the case. You also question my motives, "to twist the guidelines to try and let his pals off". This never has been the case, ever. I do not rule if I feel I have a bias. Look at a past misconduct cases, specifically the hagnat, I refused to rule. I have not ruled on the Cheesy case either, nor on the others. Also, you also say that I'm too chummy. No. If you want to base trust on my attidute, or overfriendliness, then I suppose I should base trust in you on your unfriendly personality and "passionate arguing". Meh.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:50, 18 May 2008 (BST)

   Agree with you, AHLG. Isn't being chummy a good thing? You should learn from him, instead of posting the filth that you currently are. I believe sysops are supposed to be impartial and collected at all times. You have, JUST NOW and numerous times before, demonstrated that this is beyond your limitations. Ioncannon11 23:15, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Boxy‎ (Bureaucrat)

1. Yes - Cause I think he does the job and also because I hate cyberbob. DanceDanceRevolution 10:52, 15 May 2008 (BST)

   Boxy will love that reasoning tarnishing his image, I'm sure. Keep it up! --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:46, 15 May 2008 (BST)

1. No-Also seems strange that Sysops are getting involved in voting for and against themselves.-ScoobyDooDoobie 22:08, 15 May 2008 (BST)

   Sysops are not a hive mind organism: they are governed by each other, as equally as you or I are governed. Therefore, they should be allowed to comment. It's only strange if you have some obvious and open vendetta against anyone you perceive as wielding power over you. Yoinks! --Funt Solo ^QT 11:05, 16 May 2008 (BST)

A review is not honest if the reviewer's notes can be openly debated by the reviewee during the process. You don't see a person on trial go into the Jury room to discuss whether he's guilty or innocent do you? The Sysops should have the ability to respond after their review. Otherwise you get piggybacking which seems to be occuring and it's poisoning the well of neutrality. Quit being obtuse.--ScoobyDooDoobie 23:04, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Your metaphorical powers are weak, old man. Nobody is on trial, and there is no jury. You've failed to address the fact that to disallow sysops from commenting, you would be disallowing contributers (ie any given sysop is also a contributer) from expressing their opinion on those who govern them. In the case of a sysop accused of vandalism or misconduct, who judges them? Their peers do. Therefore, they should be allowed, equally amongst us all as contributers, to comment. I'm not being obtuse: just reasonable. Yoinks! --Funt Solo ^QT 18:08, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Conndraka ‎(Sysop)

1. No Who ever this guy is he obviously has either personal issues... or maybe a life. I hear getting a teaching liscense can take a lot of your time. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 15:14, 15 May 2008 (BST)

   Erm...Lol wut? -- Cheese 15:16, 15 May 2008 (BST)

   I just finished getting My Teacher licensure...It takes a huge amount of time inside and outside of the classroom to become certified in roughly fifteen subjects. I hope to be more active in the near future and since I'm not "in a group" anymore that issue is resolved as well. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 15:23, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Daranz ‎(Sysop)

1. No This guy is downright horrible. --Daranz^{.t.mod janitor} 16:38, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Oh..damn I'm glad somebody else gets the joke. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 23:57, 15 May 2008 (BST)

We got it, it just wasn't funny the first or second time. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 05:11, 16 May 2008 (BST)

The Grimch ‎(Sysop)

May as well take this opportunity to defend myself. Im not going to say im not rude and confrontationsal, i am. You know it, i know it, the lurkers know it, and any passer by unfortunate enough to witness a blast knows it. That said, i do take exception to the "always right" thing you seem to be accusing me of. When i see a problem, the first thing i do is examine it from several different angles, compare it to experience, and come to a logical conclusion. Once this happens, i will argue for it quite strongly. If someone wants me to admit im wrong, they need to first show that im wrong. Standard methods of attempting this from this wiki are repeating the same debunked argument over and over again with minor variation in phraseology to simply shouting and calling me names. If other people disagree, but their positions are not internally consistent or based on a stable logical foundation (demonstrably so), why should i compromise? The truth of the matter is that everyone thinks they are right in an argument, its why there is an argument to be had in the frist place. The difference between myself and most others in this respect is that i have a great deal more experience in the area, and can argue my points more forcefully. Unlike a lot of people who potter around the world of debate without much of an idea of how things work, i actually know what im doing. There are others too, Karek is an example. Like it or not, a fair few of the goons are also good at this. It isnt a failing on the parts of other users that they dont have the experience and knowledge to know how to handle such a confrontation, just a difference in posting and personal history that leaves them less well equipped for some activities. The failing however is with some of the users who in their ignorance of how such matters of discussion operate decide to paint those more able to bring their point across and strike at the foundations of their opponents positions. A few little bits of advice:

1. Think with your brain instead of your heart. Decisions made intellectually rather than emotionally are much harder to knock over. Also, you are far less personally invested in them, meaining that you dont really take an ego hit if someone knocks your position down around you.
2. Read some articles on logical debate and discussion. Dont just read a fallacy list, unless you are willing to spend several hours to understand exactly how they are fallacies and how the things work, it isnt really worth it. Get a foundation first.
3. Learn to apply that thinking to your own position and you can prune down errors in it.

If a person makes a case without any such flaws, and is unable to find any in mine, thats when you compromise. But i refuse to compromise when the other side of an argument is demonstrably flawed. Oh, and the whole power hungry allegation came from me standing against the ruling clique for a prolonged period of time and ruling opposite. Combined with the above debate issue that seems to have confused people, its possible to draw that conclusion, though even then, its a fair stretch. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:06, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Most of the disagreements I have with you revolve around issues which are completely subjective. I think you'll find that this goes for many other users, too. Logic and objectivity is all well and good, but you need to realise when these things are applicable and when they are irrelevant. Some things boil down to a pure difference of opinion, and it is in these situations that the perception of you being arrogant is formed. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:58, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Even the subjective is based on the objective which influences which direction the subjective goes. Thus its possible to knock out the foundation for the opinion, though not the opinion itself directly. This is pretty common sense, and the above applies. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:25, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Ahahaha. This is looking to be another of those subjective things, because I completely disagree that the subjective is based on the objective (it can be, but in most cases is not). --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:27, 16 May 2008 (BST)

So you are saying that opinions are not based on events, facts and environment. Because all these factors really do contribute, and if you invalidate any of these foundations, you invalidate the opinion based upon it. As i said, common sense. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:30, 16 May 2008 (BST)

I am, but I don't think the opinions formed from those factors are always able to be invalidated as the underlying personality of the person simply has far too much to do with how they react to them. Basically what I'm saying is that while certainly many opinions are flawed in their underpinning logic just as many are simply too deeply rooted in someone's psyche to be thrown out by a stranger on the Internet. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:39, 16 May 2008 (BST)

If the facts upon which an opinion are based are invalidated, the opinion is based on flawed information and shares that flaw. Opinions are formed assuming information is accurate, if it is not, then the opinion is not valid in the matter under discussion. It does not matter to what degree the opinion is developed on the person without external objective sources, if the external foundation is flawed, then the opinion shares that flaw. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:53, 16 May 2008 (BST)

You don't get it and likely never really will. We're going to have to agree to disagree here, I think. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:55, 16 May 2008 (BST)

You arent even trying to examine your position to find its flaw. Opinions cannot exist in a vacuum of input, they require something to be about, and information about that something. If that information is flawed then the opinion on the something will be invalid as it isnt made with the correct full information. Why would i agree to disagree when the logic is so plainly obvious? I see your ploy by the way, you are trying to get the whole "Im always right" thing some "evidence", but you picked a poor topic for that and your ludicrous position. Also, whether a person agrees that his position has been debunked or not due to personal investment is irrelevant. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:00, 16 May 2008 (BST)

That does not always stand up to real world scrutiny though. 2 specific cases

• Punishment for murder: I can prove beyond a doubt that no one excecuted for murder has gone on to repeat the offence yet a very large portion of the worlds population would argue that state sanctioned killing of murderers is the same crime in its sunday best and therfore reprehsible. The degree of punishment an individual feels merited is always going to be at least as subjective as it is objective.
• Religious Iconography: Try convincing a devout muslim that creating a graphical representation of his religious figures is ok... Now try telling a Devout Catholic that creating a graphical image of his religious figures is a sin and offensive. How far do you think you will get? Are they both wrong? Is one right? Can they both be right?

Objectivity will not get you too far in coming to 1 definitive answer here, obviously they are both exagerated cases but surely they illustrate the point? --Honestmistake 14:06, 16 May 2008 (BST)

The problem with the first one is that there are a number of other factors involved. Peoples feelings towards life (Subjective in itself based on other stuff that goes back quite a ways). The most obvious would be that objectively, killing another person is wrong, so perpetrating the same act on the guilty party would also be wrong. Then theres the whole legal system flawed approach (Objective, based on numerous actual cases) and innocent people may get in. Also, there is the whole dead people dont reoffend (Objective) and the caring for such individuals in prison indefinately is not only costly (objective) but also presents an escape hazard (Also Objective). In that case, both sides have a lot of objective stuff as a foundation, and thats where you would probably have to compromise, or, more likely given the mutually contradictory positions, fight it out forever (As seems to be happening).

The second case is based on subjective interpretations of the scripture of that particular religion. Now it is possible to show such interpretations to be wrong (By pointing out how they are not internally consistent with the rest of the said scripture) and thus undermine a point, but given the subject matter, its highly unlikely to make a difference given the emotional investment.

As i said, everything, eventually, boils down to facts. If you can follow the chains back far enough you can chip away at the integrity of any position by atatcking those objective points. Where things boil down to purely subjective differences based on equally objective data (As in your first example), there should be compromise, if its possible within that subject, which isnt always the case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:26, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Actually everything except "the dead don't re-offend" is subjective in the first case but otherwise you have summed this up exactly as I would (scary neh?) The problem comes when one side or worse both; are too close to accept that the otherside even has the inkling of a clue. In the past we have had such arguments (in which we were both at fault) my problem with you as a sysop comes from the fact that I do not always trust you to view cases that you have a personal stake in with this level of objectivity... as I said in my comment I think you mostly do a fantastic job (except when I don't agree with you.... then you are lousy :D) but you do have a tendency to overvalue your logic when compared with other peoples interpretation of the same thing. There is nothing wrong with arguing your position forcefully but to do it in such a way as to dismiss out of hand your oppositions soon becomes dogmatic and actually harms your case. All I wish is that sometimes you would step back and remember that being articulate enough to win the argument does not always mean you the other side ddn't have any good points!--Honestmistake 14:41, 16 May 2008 (BST)

If i have a personal stake in the case, i dont rule (Such cases are generally the ones i bring, the ones against myself, and the ones in which i am involved in matters such as edit conflicts) I have a rather good history of keeping personal conflicts out of my rulings. Also, i never simply dismiss someones point of veiw, i explain why i think that it is flawed. And who says i never see the other side may have good points? I just dont choose to acknowledge it publicly as its proven to be a headache in past instances id rather do without. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:47, 16 May 2008 (BST)

I can't think of a single instance where you have ruled on a case that you have a personal stake in (and I can't imagine you trying) However the force of your argument in such cases can often sway others with less critical thinking in or out favour of the subject without your needing to rule.... Thats not a sysop thing and wouldn't change even if you were no longer a sysop but I do see it as a problem (albeit one with no real solution other than to constantly try and rebuff your every argument which soon gets tiresome for all involved) Basically if you would acknowledge that others have a point a bit more often it would make you seem a bit more human. Compromise (or even capitulation) is easier to swallow if the opposition at least seems to acknowledge that you have good points ;) In contentious areas there is very rarely a black and white answer because if there was it would not be contentious, such problems usually stem from cases where a judgement call on where to draw the line of balance between freedom and protection, punishment and correction etc... is needed, in my opinion (subjective and objective) there is rarely one single right answer. --Honestmistake 15:05, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Eh, heh, Honest, did you vote twice? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:54, 16 May 2008 (BST)

No, he updated his comment. However, he was not familiar with the use of the <br> tag to sneak in a return without breaking the count. Ive fixed it for him. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:01, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Would it really matter if i did? Its not like its actually a vote anyway is it....its just opinions.--Honestmistake 12:38, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Hagnat ‎(Sysop)

He also proposes horribly written policies that seek to take away the rights of the community - by Kid Sinister. Wow wow wow... back there for a second. I have made one - JUST ONE - policy that remove already given rights from our users, which is the one that restricts user ability to vote... and that was made because you guys made it needed because you guys abused flaws in the system. If you look at other policies i have written in the past, most of them tried to give powers to the regular user, or remove some of the red tape that clogs this wiki with several layers of bureaucracy. I can agree with some of your criticism, but this one is completely false. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:51, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Jesus Christ, Hagnat, give the "I'm right because I'm Hagnat" routine a rest how 'bout it? Just because you say something that is true is "completely false" doesn't make it so.
You just basically said that a majority vote from all of the wiki users was "abusing flaws in the system." You couldn't accept a majority decision that would limit your own power and you knew that you couldn't strike votes without looking like a powermongering dictator, so you wrote your little re-reactionary policy that is currently receiving a landslide Against vote, again from all of the wiki users. When yours and Cheeseman's re-reactionary policies got rightly shat on in their respective talkpages, one of the sysops (probably you) whined to Kevan to the tune of "OMG THE MAJORITY OF THE WIKI'S AGAINST US COME FIX IT KEVAN!!!!!1111eleven" Figure it out already, Hagnat, you're an abusive sysop and we won't take it anymore. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 00:38, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Spare me from the hagnat is a bad sysop routine too. This is growing old. Your reply does not in any way address my concern that you are making propaganda that i am unfair toward new users when it's not true. This was not the first time i tried to pass a policy about the creation of an advanced user status, and the other ones were giving powers opposed to this recent one that limits them. here and here. The second was not actually written by me, but it's blamed on me, and the first creatd several similar policies as this one didnt made it forward. As you can see, both policies shows that a level of trust would have to be given to the community as a whole, a trust i have in the community in the overall... but thanks to a few, now this trust had to be left aside and a policy to restrict voting rights was created. I too find it unfair, but it was you guys who made it needed. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:07, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Hey dipshit, read the title. You can't even stand that other people have different opinions than you in an "Open Discussion", can you?. And would you please read the damn policies that you link to? All the first one would have done was to greatly expand the current administration with administration-groomed candidates. Unsurprisingly, it got voted down. Do you even process this bullshit before it escapes your mouth? You are saying that you wrote the policy that would restrict the community that the community is voting in a landslide against, all because the community voted overwhelmingly to restrict the smallest fraction of your power, so you just had to go and whine to Kevan to silence the community. Are you going to whine to him again to enact your latest failure? --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 05:49, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Spare me from your kind words too... yes, this is an open discussion... and is that what i am doing right now. I am discussing one of the points you presented me because i thought it wasn't right. I will address some of the criticism that was made to me, but this one is completely wrong. If i am wrong, further explain this rather than simply call me a dipshit, which is uncalled for. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:23, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Until a word with a more accurate definition and connotation for you presents itself, you will be known as "dipshit" by me. I've already explained to you that the reasons you have in your head are wrong because the community as a whole (not just goons) has voted up the Vote Striking policy and voted down your attempts to circumvent majority opinion in the first policy by restricting voting rights in the second and to expand the administration with only admin-groomed "candidates" in the third, but you didn't listen because you were head-on into your "SHUTUP I'MATRUSTEDUSER" defense mechanism. You say that you're for the community while consistently acting against the community. Actions speak louder than words, dipshit. All of the lies you tell yourself inside your head won't change that fact. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 18:21, 16 May 2008 (BST)

You are a bad Sysop. Here's your current Misconduct tracker: --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 23:32, 16 May 2008 (BST)

	Misconduct Tracker
	Misconduct	Not Misconduct
	7	5

Numbers count for nothing if they are not put into context. Most of these misconduct rulings ended with just a slap in the wrist due the small nature of my crimes. I learned some lessons, and grew with them. And this is in two years on the service, so... meh. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:56, 17 May 2008 (BST)

I wouldn't be proud about getting a "slap on the wrist" when that is exactly the kind of abuse we are arguing against. We want more accountability for the abuse of power and not just the "boys will be boys - go say 3 Hail Marys" type of punishment that is being given out. The whole point was that when a trusted user breaks the rules they should get more punishment for it. And 12 cases in 2 years averages out to 1 every 2 months. How can you get in trouble that often and still be a trusted user when after, what 5, "punishments" a regular user is banned? -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 03:58, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Allow me then to put them into context. If I read the archives right, both you and Grim were made sysops within days of each other. Here is Grim's Misconduct tracker:

	Misconduct Tracker
	Misconduct	Not Misconduct
	0	8

Not only did Grim have less total cases than you, but he didn't get a single negative mark on his record! And this in the same two years of service, so... you've got some explaining to do. We're not arguing the fact that you "learned some lessons". The problem is that the lessons you learned were to jam your fingers in your ears and shout "SHUTUP I'MATRUSTEDUSER" repeatedly. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 05:40, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Where'd he go? Not going to argue this point, Hagnat? --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 23:19, 20 May 2008 (BST)

If you want to compare me to anyone, compare me to Daranz... he has gotten sysop powers even before katthew had, and i think he has one or two (if any) misconnduct cases on his name. And out of the 8 misconduc cases i have been found guilty, only THREE were serious enough to warrant me a warning, only ONE of these 3 being enough to ban me for more than a day. Putting this thing into context, ur doing it wrong. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:45, 21 May 2008 (BST)

The more you take pride in how bad you are, the worse you look, just saying.--#10 - MONEY ^TMG 05:17, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Ahahahahaha now you're trying to pick and choose your own comparisons. Putting yourself next to respectable looking friends only works for fat chicks. What fucking part of "Misconduct" don't you understand, dipshit? Do you have even the slightest bit of respect for the administration here? --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 05:21, 22 May 2008 (BST)

You were so hated that a user even created the username fagnat. You think you're always right, and assume far too much power in this wiki. Ioncannon11 23:13, 19 May 2008 (BST)

let me guess, YOU are fagnat ? I knew i should've run a check user when i banned him. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:45, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Ah, no, I am not fagnat and a check user confirmed him as an alt of another. Don't play stupid, hagnat. Your intentions are good, but your methods are not. You give yourself too much power. Ioncannon11 17:58, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Seventythree ‎(Sysop)

I'm not replying as yet to anyone's comments but if anyone wants to ask a direct question, or start a discussion please feel free to start it here.--Seventythree^Talk 23:09, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Vantar ‎(Bureaucrat)

1. Abstain - Seems like a bit of a wallflower sysop of late... The only thing that stands out with his work is me getting annoyed with for putting up "abandoned" group pages up for deletion less than a 2 weeks after they were created... --WanYao 13:01, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Why are you putting an ABSTAIN under NO? I don't think you know what ABSTAIN means. Why vote on him at all? -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 02:31, 17 May 2008 (BST) You get one here too.

Last time I checked, this wasn't a vote. This is an opportunity for the community as a whole to give their opinions on the sysops. Stop giving him shit. -- Cheese 23:31, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Shut the fuck up, DCC. Anyway, I didn't actually vote in any abstain section, I voted "Abstain" under "No"... Someone put my vote here, in this newly created section... And, anyhoomore... An abstention vote with a comment is a valid and really quite necessary here... People need the ability to say, "I neither support nor oppose blah-blah... and here's why blah blah..." In other words, why don't you abstain from this, yourself, and spare us your troll's "opinion" --WanYao 10:17, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Vista ‎(Sysop)

First of all I'd like to say I trust all the current sysops, but that I personally dont think I'm around enough to still qualify as a member of the community.

Second it would be best if my entry here was removed as I've asked for demotion based on my inactivity. Personally I agree with kid sinister but I'd still like to thank the people who thought I'd still make a good sysop for their trust in me.-- Vista  +1  18:49, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Zombie slay3r (Sysop)

1. No - Cyberbob is a stupid prick... But he's right this one time. --WanYao 12:41, 15 May 2008 (BST)

   <3 --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:00, 15 May 2008 (BST)

1. 'Abstain - 'Nuff said. --WanYao 21:33, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Are you an idiot? Why are you putting ABSTAIN under NO? You fuck head. Can we vote on users? Because I don't think some of these morons (Wan Yao) are smart enough to be a USER on the wiki, much less a TRUSTED user. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 02:32, 17 May 2008 (BST) And again

Shut the fuck up, already. I am neither for nor against... that's a valid opinion and it's not my fault Grimch didn't take that into account when he wrote this page. So, go back under the bridge where you trolls live, 'kay? ---WanYao 10:18, 18 May 2008 (BST)

If you can't decide between "yes, I trust this person" and "no, I do not trust this person" then continue to be an indecisive dickhole and simply keep your mouth shut. There's no need to edit a page to say "I HAVE NO OPINION!" because no one cares if you don't. Not to mention that it's child's play to add in an abstain header instead of trying to rationalise that "not voting" means "voting" so you shut the fuck up already you gibbering, infantile retard. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 22:24, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Um. Wheres the discussion?

Do we need this really?

And another thing this quasivote seems to be on the ablility to "use their abilities and sysop "authority" responsibly."

Which is an entirely different issue in my opinion to how active they are.

Trusted users, do have extra powers, but then they have extra hoops as well.

Or is this a step on a much longer road? E.G. .....In a recent informal poll 80% of users believed that Grim was abusing his authority as a trusted user, based on this I believe his position as a sysop should be called into question.....--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:24, 15 May 2008 (BST)

It's gotta be steps...it serves no other purpose.--xoxo 03:12, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Is this a healthy thing to be doing?

That's not meant to be a rhetorical question, the answer could be yes just as much as it could be no. On the one hand, public criticism is unpleasant, and if you know an issue with a sysop's actions, choosing to address it with them in private can be preferable. Still, there is a socialization value here, and an indication of whether that a sysop is a good fit with the community is informative. So, a question to each of the sysops being talked about here: Do you mind this? --Toejam 19:58, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Yes, it's perfectly healthy. Some of the opinions on the main page have already been changed because they were better informed by other users. Public debates like this are good for dragging all of the skeletons out of the closet. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 20:17, 15 May 2008 (BST)

I agree. I used to mantain a feedback section in my talk page, but it was barely used. This could work, if only people could learn to separate trust from lack of activity... i see plenty of people voting no for sysops because they have a low activity.. that alone should'nt demonstrate lack of trust in the user decision making abilities. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:43, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Hagnat has a very good point here. It should be based on overall performance. We don't want to punish people that have a life outside of the wiki that might lead to periods of inactivity. We want to focus on those that are misusing their position. Besides, there are policies in place to deal with inactivity. If those policies are being followed then using "inactive" as a criteria for a NO vote here is pointless.

But, Hag, I think having a feedback section on your talk page may not be the way to go. People would be hesistant to "attack" someone on their homepage, if you know what I mean. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 03:47, 17 May 2008 (BST)

I'm all for this, to be honest. I'm not always going to agree with the feedback, but provided its in the form of constructive criticism I will take it on board and at least consider the fact I'm doing something wrong. It does have to be constructive though, so please, no one word yes or no comments, they're not too usefull! I was concerned that this might lead to slagging matches between users but so far everyone seems to have treated it well, and in the spirit it is intended! I'm all for changing this slightly to a page with a sub heading for every sysop where comments/complaints/compliments about a sysops conduct can be left.--Seventythree^Talk 21:02, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Based on some of the comments toward the inactive sysops, it seems that there might be more interest for something like this type of reform to decrease the amount of time between required edits for activity and make sure that the edit is an administrative edit and not a general one like in the current policy. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:42, 15 May 2008 (BST)

A long time ago, I argued that it's often neither easy nor constructive to simply deal with a "problem" sysop solely on their talk page. The reasons for this ought to be obvious... There are dangers in this process, surely, but overall it gives people a less threatening -- and more transparent -- way to address their concerns. Conversely, it's also a public way to voice support for sysops whom people believe are doing a good job. As, I think it was Katthew who said it -- people are changing their votes based on others' comments... So, with only a couple of excpetions, this is becoming a genuine forum for discussion, and not a mere verbal sniping range. --WanYao 06:42, 16 May 2008 (BST)

I think having a place like this where people can present issues they have had with sysops in the past that others aren't aware of might be the best idea. If there are links provided for the more "heated" or controversial issues it will make it more fair, too. That way people can read them and make their own decisions.-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 03:47, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Too bad there wasn't some sort of policy that called for periodic reviews of the sysops in order to determine if the community still had faith in their actions. I believe the majority of people against it amusingly enough stated that Misconduct could handle all of the sysop abuses and that the sysop's talk page should be used for feedback instead of a public forum. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:14, 20 May 2008 (BST)

act responsibly?

This whole discussion is meaningless until that term is more defined. What specific uses of sysop powers are we looking for responsible use of, and are they all equally important and equally necessary? Is inactivity irresponsibility, as people assert in my case? Is a high level of activity with resulting higher levels of conflict a problem, or is it beneficial?
I'd say being "responsible" in this case means this; does the wiki benefit from that person being a sysop, in a way that outweighs the perceived risk of giving them the associated powers? And I doubt there are ANY sysops for who that is not the case.  Swiers 03:31, 16 May 2008 (BST)

How about we add Cyberbob to the list.

Oh wait, hes a dickless ex-sysop trolling noob! DanceDanceRevolution 08:12, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Only on Mondays. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:52, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Hi, dickless ex-sysop trolling noob! --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 18:23, 16 May 2008 (BST)

And then what?

It bothers me that the article calls itself "not a popularity contest" when it's obvious that it's taking that shape. But, will it finish? And then what? We'll have Sysops pointing other Sysops that they are not as "trusted" as them? or as the average? or as to win the half or two thirds of the trust betweeen all users, or between "regular" users, or between the (ironically) so called trusted users? This is pointless and may have not been more than just an exercise for every participating user's labia in expressing their POV, if anything else at all. --Starplatinum 22:10, 16 May 2008 (BST)

What we will have is a snapshot of how the users of the wiki feel about the sysops. We will get to see this outside of policy debates or arguing on the A/VB page in the heat of the moment. We will get to see how well people can support their opinions. We will also get to see how the sysops handle criticism. We will get to see the "Good Old Boy" network in action as the cliques come out and just give lame "Vouch" like votes. This is far from pointless, but I can see that you don't see the big picture. Just go vote for the users that have names you like then. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 03:32, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Insult not taken, just look at my votes and you'll know why. I'd try to explain how wrong you are but it's the same as talking to a wall, so just a bit of important advice for now: learn how to pick your allies, dumbass. --Starplatinum 04:36, 17 May 2008 (BST)

I have read your votes. You are like the Paula Adbul of users. And this line under your Grim vote right here: As of lately he has been discussing pretty heatedly on the meatpuppets issue defending people that has not much defense because it would help his "democracy doesn't work" argument,... shows me how retarded you actually are. The fact that you are against his position on the meatpuppet issue is funny. You barely have 100 edits and you have only been on the wiki since March. You would be considered a "meat Puppet" and have no vote if it wasn't for people like Grim (and me and my group) fighting for it. But please keep spouting your vast wisdom and knowledge of the wiki and put me on your "enemies list", you passive aggressive fuck. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 23:06, 17 May 2008 (BST)

The DCC Guide to Debate: call everyone with a different point of view a retard, or a fag, or a retardofag. Throw in some random abuse for good measure. Job done. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:53, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Its better than the Funt Solo style of debate, which is to simply ignore any arguments or rebuttals you dont like and keep shouting at the top of your voice until you get slapped down then run off to moan about it on the Mod Conspiracy page. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:44, 18 May 2008 (BST)

That's right, Grim. That's why the policy proposals I put forward never change from their first incarnation: because I never listen to other peoples' points of view. </sarcasm> You should look up the meaning of "rebuttal", as well, because it doesn't mean "Grim's opinion may be taken as absolute fact, and anyone who disagrees with it may be freely accused of ignoring a concrete, ironclad, foolproof argument of pure unadulterated logic". You seem to be confused on that issue. Sorry if some of the Mod Conspiracy articles sting a bit. Try acting less like you're some kind of intellectual colossus striding the wiki, and your ego might deflate to normal levels, at which point it'll be less easy to puncture. (Regarding your false accusation that those articles are in response to my being "slapped down", please take the time to read over, say, the last five, for example, and note that none of the cases directly involve me at all.) --Funt Solo ^QT 10:20, 18 May 2008 (BST)

So you are saying that you propose a policy and then change it based on input? That means you are either proud of the fact you are weak willed and easily swayed or you are going off [half cocked] and not really thinking things through before posting.

Your Mod Conspiracy page reeks of High School Gossip Rag trying so hard to push a button. But this line:and note that none of the cases directly involve me at all. is truly funny. They don't involve you, but not for lack of trying! You stick your nose in everywhere and throw out stupid comments to stir people up. (meat puppet debate ring a bell?) -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 14:56, 18 May 2008 (BST)

You say "weak willed and easily swayed"; I say open to debate and compromise according to the wishes of the community. I prefer my perspective. What, after all, is the purpose of having discussion prior to a policy vote, if it's not to alter the policy proposal based on the results of the discussion? As for stirring people up, your continual and casual use of bigotry points to a clear hypocrisy on your part. You've heard of the pot and the kettle, I presume? --Funt Solo ^QT 15:23, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Well, you see Funt, there's only real two perspectives on this matter. There's the way you're looking at it, and there's the right way. You had better fix your vision before you fall down and hurt yourself. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 22:39, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Funt, i strongly suggest you reexamine the history of this wiki, sopecifically the two policies i proposed, both of which i altered to fit reasonable suggestions and comments by other users, and even made a bloody good go at working out some issues and misunderstandings on the talk pages. Since you refuse to do any linking to back up your assertions, i shall return the favour, but at the very least ill give you a half decent idea of where to look: One in rejected policies, one in approved. Have a nice search. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:09, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Maybe some confusion here: I was not saying that you didn't mould your policy proposals. I was defending myself against the accusation that I "simply ignore any arguments or rebuttals". Sorry if I wasn't clear. Anyway, it's rather off topic, and I'd gladly drop it at this point: not sure if we're adding much to this discussion. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:46, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Inactivity and trust

There's a theme running through this page of people saying that people who are voting "no" because of inactivity are doing it wrong, but if I've you've been inactive to such an extent that I've never met you, there's no possible way for you to have earned my trust. A "no" vote isn't necessarily a vote that you think the sysop would do/is doing a bad job, it's a vote that you have no reason to think they would do a good one. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 20:14, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Hey, they pop on whenever anyone talks about removing their power. So that's something, right? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:17, 20 May 2008 (BST)

List of Trust!

The totally subjective, not really representative list of trust (as of the time of this post, natch):

• 85% AHLG
• 85% Swiers
• 82% Seventythree
• 79% Vista
• 75% Zombie slay3r
• 65% The Grimch
• 57% Boxy
• 47% Karek
• 46% Nubis
• 42% Hagnat
• 36% Vantar
• 29% Daranz
• 22% The General
• 21% Cheeseman
• 14% Thari
• 00% Conndraka

--Funt Solo ^QT 14:56, 24 May 2008 (BST)