Talk:Wiki Monitors

Membership Paradox

So, by this rule:

If you have an history of vandalism/bad faith edits/trolling/creation of drama/denial of reason, don't apply neither.

You, Matthew can't by definition of the rules, can't be a member, because certainly drama has surrounded you, and thusly the creation of this group has certain begat drama. So my questions are as follows:

1. Do you plan on stepping down once you have a memberbase that is non-dramatic and hold a democratic election to replace you as "leader"?
2. Why do you exclude moderators? I understand the concept of "us vs. the man" but certainly there are mods who aren't on a power trip.
3. Are my assumptions in the last question correct?
4. What kind of prize are you offering the mods?
5. If this is planned on being a "freedom of the press" type of establishment, do you plan on using American or British press standards?
6. Why do this instead of going for mod and trying to make a difference within the ranks itself?
7. Is this because of WTFCENTAURS?
8. If this is certainly not about all mods, is there particular mods you will be targeting?
9. If yes, Whom?
10. Are you the Rodney King or the Runaway Bride of wiki users?
11. Are you a puppet of more dramatic users?
12. Would you be offended if a wikigroup called the Wiki Monitors Monitors sprung up to keep tabs on the on the Wiki Monitors and make sure they are keeping things Fair and Balanced?

That is all for now. Thank you for your time. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Im glad to see that people has taken some time to read the rules we have made and even make really good questions (as I see them on a quick glance) about them. Let me respondthem one by one, and hopefully you will understand our group's objectives better. First the introduction: It's true and I can deny it that I have been surrounded by a good ammount of drama, but I believe (or at least try to convince myself) that most of it wasn't generated by myself, or if it was, it was unintentional and in response to previous trolling made against me. The creation of the group can't be called as "dramatic" as it hasn't be noticed a lot, and actual drama generated by it is still to be seen. So...

1. I don't really plan on stepping down the group leadership unless one of these two things happen: I have to become inactive or I myself become a Mod. Neither of these options seem close enough to guarantee that I'll step down in a close future, but I do seek for members on wich I can trust and that are cappable of taking care of the group even if I do not take an active part.
2. I aknowledge that there ARE mods that are not in a power trip, I can even mention a pair right now, but in order to maximise the range of action of the group and to hold credibility within members that don't know which are the "good" guys and wich are the "bad" ones, I have decided to ban Moderators from elegibility. I trust that those Moderators that sincerely felt excluded by this rule will nonetheless act as they always do and hopefully not only not obstruct, but contribute to our objectives. If I inlcuded some Mods on the membership of my group, the loss of credibility will be great and then our chances of be taken as impartial would greatly diminish.
3. I don't know what assumptions, but if you refer that not all Mods are in a power trip, then you are correct.
4. A thousand dollars in cash to be sent in a Western Union envelope as soon as we get their adresses, =P. Nah, more like a template like {{Cookie}} and our sincere thanks for contributing, mantaining civility and being a true model user of the wiki.
5. I actually don't understand this question very well. Let me state that I live in Argentina, and our papers can as much oppose the Government, satirize it, oppose whatever they want... there's even people daily interrupting main roads as a form of protest and the stablishment doesn't restrain them. If you ask me if I'll allow opposed POVs on the Record, I'll as long as it doesn't get out of the group's scope.
6. Hahaha, I did and you voted against! Seriously, I tried that already, and examples of what can you do can be taken for the current "good" Mods. Did they change much, or anything at all?
7. WTF?
8. As of now, it's certain that there are Mods that won't be aimed at a lot, because they don't engage in actions of debatable veracity. But if any Mod, ANY, makes a bad faith decission, we will be trying to expose it, no matter who they were.
9. Whoever Mod engages in bad faith decission, bad behaviour and misuse of their special abilities as a trusted member of the community. NO NAMES.
10. I don't know who's Rodney King and how the Runaway Bride applies to my particular situation.
11. If I were, you'll see mee engaging in constant conversations with them somewhere on the wiki. Now, even with those users whom I simpatize with (like my repeated example of Jedaz, the wiki Galilei =P), I don't chat a lot. Now, what outside the Wiki? I can confide the community that I don't have any contact with any wiki user or former wiki user outside this wiki, and the only time I had outside contact was after my failed promotion bid, in a brief MSN conversation with both BobHammero and Xoid. It should be noted that I don't talk with neither of them trough these means since then.
12. I have stated my POV about the issue already on the main page. I understand that it's a nice way to satirize my group, and I won't be complaining about it as long as no member of your group exceeds their atributions as users of the wiki and vandalize or actively bully on our group page.

I hope that these answers satisfied you. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just saying, my reasoning this group was even created is because Matthew Fahrenheit totally phailed at getting mod power, and he probably hopes this will make him look better, so he can snatch said position. --Absolution 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolution, let me tell you how WRONG you are. I did fail to get Moderator status a good while ago (4 months ago?), altough getting more than half of For votes can't be counted as a total failure. About my possible intentions on trying to launch myself for Moderator status ever again, you are yet completely wrong: this doesn't benefit me in the slightiest bit about that, and the action of launching this group can be seen as my political suicide on this wiki. Why you come here to talk bad about me when we didn't have any kind of direct contact? Who are you? Dime con quien andas y te diré quien eres. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell me with whom you walk and I will tell you who you are. That's an interesting phrase.--Gage 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a spanish proverb: we call them "refrán" in singular, "refranes" in plural. I always lament the lack of knowledge in my part of good English proverbs, and finally decided to just use my language's ones. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The best English proverb your going to find these days is "Git R Dunnnn!" --CaptainM 07:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's urban (pheraps rural could be more appropiate) slang! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 07:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out

That there is indeed a signature policy. Jut thought you should know. - Jedaz^{ΣT ΞD GIS S!} 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That policy is still under discussion you twit. --CaptainM 04:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unh, check under the Approved Policies section and have a look at the second one from the bottom (Named Signature Policy). You should get your facts strait before you start calling people names, it doesn't show a very positive side to you. - Jedaz^{ΣT ΞD GIS S!} 13:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, it didn't appear to be approved at the time I posted that, but I must not have been paying much attention. Anyway, if that was mentioned because of my sig as an accusatory statement, my signature breaks none of the rules mentioned in that policy. If you were just saying it because you wanted to feel special, then you need a hobbie. --CaptainM 07:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no. I was trying to point out that the article on January the 8th is incorrect (or at least worded with bias). When Gage made the vandalism report the Generals signature looked like this, which could be considered to be breaking the rules under "Signatures which generally break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means." (2nd dot point) It's all open to interpretation as to what is considered breaking the wiki, however at the time of when Gage made the report it is easy to see why the Generals signature would have been considered as of such. As it's currently worded it sounds like Gage was working without any policy that governs signatures (and hence is why I belive that the article is incorrect). It would be wise to re-word it if you ask me, but of course the final decision lies with you and Matthew. - Jedaz^{ΣT ΞD GIS S!} 08:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Urgh

Matthew, tu começa a parecer narrador de jogo de futebol... e o Galvão Bueno ainda por cima! Quer comentar sobre as atividades dos moderadores, legal. Mas ao menos espere a situação se desenrolar por completo para fazer o comentário. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hagnat, jIH laH jatlh--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hagnat, I think you have the wrong idea that I understand Portuguese. I do understand writen Portuguese the same that I can understand writen Italian or a little French, because the languages are very much alike Spanish (all come from Latin and all), but I don't wholly understand what you said. Anyways, what I do understand, and I agree to now, is that I should wait a while to cases to unfold themselves before making commentaries. Understand yourself that this is my first experience as a journalist, and I'm learning along the way, and gimme a chance to prove that I'll get better in time =). --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, Hagnat, there are better ways to get across a souper sekret message than by speaking in another language. Cyberbob  Talk  05:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

put it in big blinking text?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 05:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What blinking? Cyberbob  Talk  05:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That was no souper sekret message.. i used a very formal portuguse so anyone could translate that easily with google or whatever.. you can just say i was.. bored ;) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK then. Sorry. Cyberbob  Talk  13:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)