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

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

This is a simple poll to discuss, among the community, which sysops the users trust and which ones they dont trust to use their abilities and sysop "authority" responsibly. This is not a popularity contest. It is possible to not trust a user to use their sysop abilities responsibly while liking them, and id very much like people to answer here honestly.

This has been created because of the recent raising of issues regarding the status of sysops as "trusted users". I dont know about the rest of you, but id like to see if that is actually the case. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:30, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Instructions

On this page, please leave a comment under the appropriate section for each sysop, detailing why you do or do not trust them to act responsibly.

Discussion of peoples opinions and other matters regarding this discussion are to take place on the talk page.

The Sysops

AHLG (Sysop)

Yes

  1. Yes - He may be pretty new and kinda naive sometimes, but I trust him to be responsible. He's friendly enough and a good overall user, and doesn't seem to get engulfed into drama messes, probably because he knows how to avoid them without all the selfconceited announce of "I'm out of here!" or "you don't deserve my input". --Starplatinum 06:13, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Yes - He's great. -WanYao 06:59, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Yes - not that new and the most active gnome in these parts. We need a few sysops like this.--xoxo 09:23, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Yes especialy as he has the humility to call in advice and backup when he is unsure.--Honestmistake 09:27, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. Yes - as a caretaker, as a polite individual, as someone who cares about the community. However, see my No vote, below, for the other side of the coin. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:21, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  6. Yes as Funt. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 15:09, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  7. Yes and No on quite a few points that Funt makes.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:15, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  8. Yes - Gnome is easily the best sysop here. The rest of us dive into things head first (myself included) but Gnome does exactly what he's supposed to and remains impartial. -- Cheese 15:19, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Yes - he was just recently promoted, so i can't expect him to know all the drills... but i have faith in him, and i trust his judgment. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:51, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  10. Yes Sometimes "flakey", but since this isn't a popularity contest, he's ok. Not a villan. (that's almost a compliment)--The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:09, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  11. Yes As Funt, post striking of "no" vote. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  12. Yes Again, he fucks up the least. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 23:31, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  13. Yes lives up to name - Vantar 10:28, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  14. Yes Love this guy. Every time I ask for a favor, big or small, he's right on it. Don't know what I'd do without AHLG. Ioncannon11 22:56, 19 May 2008 (BST)
  15. Yes Hardly perfect but he tries to solve issues without conflict before using his sysop powers and based on that is worthy of a certain level of trust. --Riseabove 16:55, 20 May 2008 (BST)
  16. Yes - Gentle, polite, competent, willing to listen, friendly, level-headed, and has a sense of humour. A marvelous sysop. --Toejam 01:53, 21 May 2008 (BST)
  17. yes - Passive admin but ok. The man 16:18, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  18. Yes - Always appears helpful, and knows what he talking about.--drawde DORIS•RR•RRF•RI! 22:44, 30 July 2008 (BST)
  19. Yes as Wan. --Haliman - Talk 00:22, 9 October 2008 (BST)
  20. Yes. A good guy - always willing to lend a hand.--Nallan (Talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)

No

  1. Has made some incredibly weakminded decisions. Is far too willing to go with the popular opinion. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:13, 15 May 2008 (BST)
    No - as an enforcer, as a peacekeeper, as someone with a wise, thoughtful, and fair judgement process, it's no. He's too quick to follow his nose, or to follow someone elses, or to be swayed away from his initial choice, which seems like indecision. However, see my Yes vote, above, for the other side of the coin. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:21, 15 May 2008 (BST) (I've decided the pros out-weigh the cons. It's a nature I have to trust, and wisdom only comes from experience. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:40, 15 May 2008 (BST))
  2. 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)
  3. I was gonna Abstain - But I feel I can't... As a friend? of course... as a sysops? Hells no...--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 16:46, 19 May 2008 (BST)
  4. No - Seems like he mostly remains impartial, but not where it matters (vb or miscondurct). --Emot-siren.gif LABIA on the INTERNET Emot-siren.gif Dunell Hills Corpseman The Malton Globetrotters#24 - You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 03:33, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Boxy‎ (Bureaucrat)

Yes

  1. Yes - I think of him as a bit of a coward sometimes, being given power and not using it even when it's obvious that he could do something. I may be the one that's wrong though, as I'm a bit impulsive and sometimes the best course of action could be not to take action at all. Maybe the indifference just bothers me, or the wasted possibilities that he has to make a change when ruling a vandal case, a misconduct case, or anything, pisses me off. But in doing janitorial work, because AFAIK that's what he wants to be doing, I trust him, and in making good calls at electing new Sysops I think he may be the best option currently available after Vista. --Starplatinum 06:19, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Yes - Cause I think he does the job and also because I hate cyberbob. DanceDanceRevolution 10:52, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Yes - the no voters here seem to be punishing boxy for one of the great strengths they display: that of not being a reactionary. Boxy will sit back, presumably in stealth mode (or perhaps just too busy elswhere), and weigh in only when necessary, and usually with a stance that you could easily define as tough, firm and peacable. For someone in the position of 'crat to behave like some Judge Dredd-like police juggernaut would be horrible, and not particularly useful for the community. Where just about every other user (especially sysops) on this wiki have taken to name-calling as almost the first resort in a debate, even under incredible pressure, I've rarely seen boxy stoop beneath a reasoned argument, whilst still being forthcoming and down to earth. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:26, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Yes Again.. As Funt. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 15:10, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. As Funt.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:16, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  6. Yes - As Funt. -- Cheese 15:19, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  7. Yes - boxy is fair and trustful. There is no reason not to trust him --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:52, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  8. Yes Jonny12 talk 16:09, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Yes As Funt -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  10. Yes for reasons already stated - Vantar 10:29, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  11. Yes I wasn't so sure originally, but I feel he has an unclouded judgment. Ioncannon11 22:57, 19 May 2008 (BST)
  12. Hell Yeah The man 16:19, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  13. YES --Haliman - Talk 00:24, 9 October 2008 (BST)

No

  1. Cliquiest of them all. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:13, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. No-ish - I used to think boxy was one of the best. But too many times recently I have watched him not take a stand -- or fail to take the correct stand if it involves "punishment" -- on IMO very obvious issues, A/VB in particular, but not just that... Someone called him a coward above... I dunno if it's that, or lack of time, or just inattentativeness, or what? --WanYao 12:58, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. No - Most likely suspect as to the one who whined to Kevan to veto down a policy that was passing with 72% of the votes. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 20:00, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. No-Also seems strange that Sysops are getting involved in voting for and against themselves.-ScoobyDooDoobie 22:08, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. I'd say this too, but if I didn't vote for myself you assholes would throw me to the wolves. Fuckers. --– Nubis 22:46, 16 May 2008 (BST) - I moved this since it screwed up the numbering. Forgive me.EDIT: FUCK IT-DCC
  6. No because boxy has never once demonstrated to anyone any kind of quality that suggests he should be trusted. Ever. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) ;x You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild! @ 22:36, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  7. No Sometimes people need to step down and walk away. --The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:10, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  8. No - Because of a couple of incidents. For starters, he is weak. He bends whichever way the wind is blowing at the time, instead of standing up for what is right. The second is his immensely hasty banning of myself when i banned a vandal with an hour left on a ban i had for allegedly breaking an arbitration ruling that was, to be frank, insane (It was with this matter that i had the problems i detailed down on Vantars entry here). The second is that occasionally he chimes into perfectly valid discussions telling participants to shut the hell up. Also, as bob said, he is also extremely cliquey. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:07, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  9. No - do not trust to be fair and unbiased--Kristi of the Dead 15:05, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  10. No - didn't show up to rule on Jed's promotion bid.--Nallan (Talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Conndraka ‎(Sysop)

Yes

No

  1. No - His ruling on a certain Arbitration case, his inactiveness, his bias towards his own group... you call it. He can make good and informed decissions: I just wish he made them more often. --Starplatinum 06:21, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. No - Too many examples of letting personal bias get in the way of rational decisions. --WanYao 07:07, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Never see him. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:13, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Hardly around, i've only heard of him coz of the whole the dead vandalism thing...--xoxo 09:24, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. No last time i remember seeing him active was the abysmal ruling against Grim in Arbies that caused no end of Drama.--Honestmistake 14:28, 15 May 2008 (BST) Condraka made me change my vote... I just don't trust teachers ;) Seriously though, if he's that busy perhaps self demoting until he has more time?--Honestmistake 15:17, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  6. Inactive as a sysop - to a large enough extent that he feels like a visitor from outer space when he rules on something. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:34, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  7. 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. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 15:14, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  8. Too inactive. And apparently he doesn't liek himself. Maybe step down from the spot?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:17, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  9. No - As above. If you don't trust yourself, why are you a sysop? -- Cheese 15:22, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  10. No Is only active when it involves his group.--ScoobyDooDoobie 17:40, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  11. No He's never around and is blatantly biased towards his own group. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 19:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  12. No For regular duties I trust Condraka, but I can't trust Condraka for supporting drama. --Rogue 05:04, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  13. No - I wouldn't trust Conndraka with anything more important than... fuck it, I wouldn't trust him with anything whatsoever. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) ;x You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild! @ 22:34, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  14. No - There is nothing "trustworthy" about him.--The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:11, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  15. No Blinded by strong pro-DHPD bias. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  16. No The only world in which conndraka could be considered impartial, objective, or even remotely fair, is a world in which everyone has had their brains surgically removed. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:19, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  17. No Occasionally does some cleanup work, but only when he's called out on only keeping the position to be the DHPD's ace in the hole whenever they have issues. Yeah, that's not transparent or anything. --Riseabove 16:43, 20 May 2008 (BST)
  18. No Seriously, look around the A/VB. All drama seems to revolve around people hating this guy. There is something clearly wrong here. The man 16:27, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Daranz ‎(Sysop)

Yes

  1. Yes - Daranz is a good Sysop, I just wish he were more active and were willing to take a more active role on important administrative pages and discussions. --Starplatinum 06:22, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Yes - while inactive most of the time, daranz is one of the few users on this wiki that i never disagreed with. All his judgements have been fair and in the best interest of the wiki. Being inactive is not going to harm this trust. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:56, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Yes - I trust him to make good decisions. Whether he's around or not is another matter. Jonny12 talk 16:10, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Yes - An ancient user, witty and not full of himself. --Toejam 02:52, 21 May 2008 (BST)

No

  1. Weak No - because I never see this person and thus can't form a positive opinion. --WanYao 07:05, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Abstain/no - as WanYao says its hard to judge someone you never see active. If he is busy with admin duties thats a good thing but a sysop should also step into the firing line that is A/VB and misconduct rulings so we can test their judgement.--Honestmistake 09:11, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. No - Never seen around - i think the sysops inactivity policy needs changing...again.--xoxo 09:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Never heard of him before now - inactive, shouldn't be a sysop. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:35, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. I've seen the guy, like, twice.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:17, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  6. No - I don't think I've ever seen him. And I've been around for quite a while. -- Cheese 15:23, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  7. No Not active, hence useless. This is about community right?--ScoobyDooDoobie 17:42, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  8. Who? - Seriously, this guy is a sysop, right? --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 19:50, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Skrull. Someone alert Iron Man. (Just in case you're an anal-retentive douche with no sense of humour, aka a "system operator", this is a no vote. Because I have no idea who this guy is and therefore do not trust him.) --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) ;x You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild! @ 22:41, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  10. Weak no Never met em. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  11. No - I feel bad about saying no just because I've never seen them around, but I guess you wouldn't trust a stranger.--Nallan (Talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)

The Grimch (Sysop)

Yes

  1. Yes - I think that Grim is a terrible and, more often than not, extremely rude person. Frankly, the way he treated some newbies was cruel and unusual. BUT, as far as janitorial work goes, he's a good SysOp. There haven't been many (if any) occasions where I thought he did not act responsibly (because being nice really isn't one of his responsibilities). Put it this way: I'd trust Grim with a bank account, but not a small child. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 06:13, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Yes - Grimch is abrasive loudmouthed and opinionated, sure... But how could I hold that against anyone else?? ;P ... He grows on you... kind of like a buboe... ;P And when you put aside his crazy-assed flaming (hard to do, I admit)... of all the sysops he is actually one of the most consistent and even-handed... When push comes to shove, you may not agree with him, but he does put the wiki and the community, as well his own idea of "fairness" before anything else... --WanYao 07:01, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Eh... he has his weak moments but overall he's got the right idea. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:13, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Yes - He's fair and doesn't seem to let his personal feelings interfere with his professional actions. I trust him to act professional and not abuse his powers. Colbear 10:00, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. Pfffffft....Grim's a toughie. He's a bit on the mean and aggressive side, but he tries very hard to help the community. But, like Funt said, he's just got too much of that Yes/No, Right/Wrong thing going on. If he could work on that, he'd be much better as a sysops. I'd trust him a lot more at that. But, as it stands, I still trust him with the keys to the broom closet.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:31, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  6. Yes - I think he makes the right decisions, just not in the nicest manner. Jonny12 talk 16:11, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  7. Of Course - Not as nice or friendly as some others, but gets the job done better then almost everyone else.--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 18:55, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  8. Yes - Everyone, you don't realize this, but Grim is as nice as you all let him be. He has no problem flipping on the Asshole switch as needed. Unfortunately, it's needed very often around here. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 19:31, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Yes Is doing his job and isn't affected by yes-men and groupthink.--ScoobyDooDoobie 22:12, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  10. Yes a clear voice of reason. --– Nubis 22:37, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  11. Green but not a Skrull. Grim I have known you ever since you became more postcount than man, back on the forums in the old days. You're a faggot and you get embroiled in too much serious business, but you're not some pansy-ass punk kid who don't know their DARIS from their CoL like most of the other sysops. This is a tentative display of faith in saying that I trust you, but I'd rather not. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) ;x You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild! @ 22:45, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  12. Yes You have impressed me very much with your comments and general attitude about this wiki. You are one of the few that I would still respect even if I disagreed with you because I honestly think you would arrive at the decision based on intelligent thought careful consideration. You are so not a fuck head and if you are ever up for 'Crat you would have more than just my sword, axe, or bow, sir.--The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:16, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  13. Yes Actually seems to be one of the most rational sysops, despite his legend. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  14. Yes I know I haven't liked him much in the past and the asshole switch should prolly be replaced with a just plain off switch, but I've come to change some of my views on this guy. All in all I think he does alot of wiki work. His attitude at times still gets a no.--Kristi of the Dead 15:02, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  15. Yes I don't really like the guy but he builds his arguments out of logic from a sound cornerstone of actually knowing what a sysop is supposed to do and that's what's important here. --Riseabove 16:48, 20 May 2008 (BST)
  16. Yes - He is probably alone and unloved in real life, but he has the wiki's best interests at heart.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  10:07, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  17. Yes - Grim doesn't pander to the pro-survivor circle jerkers and that is to be commended. --The Malton Globetrotters#19 - DrPain TMG 16:54, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  18. Yes - Grim will do things that others cannot or will not do. --Emot-siren.gif LABIA on the INTERNET Emot-siren.gif Dunell Hills Corpseman The Malton Globetrotters#24 - You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 04:11, 29 June 2008 (BST)
  19. Yes - If you take the time to know what he's thinking, and not be an idiot, he's... alright. He still could be slightly less abrasive. --drawde DORIS•RR•RRF•RI! 22:43, 30 July 2008 (BST)
  20. Yes - He's unpleasant, and I'd be happy to see him take a break from crat, but he's trustworthy, he knows what he's talking about, and he'll be brutally neutral. Grim is a good sysop and needs to be there as a weight to balance things out.--Nallan (Talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)
    BAHAHAHAHAHAHHA, spoke to soon, young nallan? --xoxo 11:44, 9 October 2008 (BST)
    He's still sysop.--Nallan (Talk) 11:49, 9 October 2008 (BST)
    "he's trustworthy". Define trustworthy. If you mean you can leave him alone for 5 minutes and he won't make a wiki coup, then FAIL, untrustworthy. ;) If you mean a lovable rogue, well then he ticks those boxes.--xoxo 12:00, 9 October 2008 (BST)
    The second one. He's trustworthy in that you know he'll do the job - perhaps a little too thoroughly.--Nallan (Talk) 12:06, 9 October 2008 (BST)
    Doesn't take sides? Thats because he has no friends to really side with--CyberRead240 12:14, 9 October 2008 (BST)

No

  1. No - Probably the most controversial Sysop still keeping his status as such. I put in question his real motives on making this page, on discussing for or against anything he does discuss for or against... whatever you want. 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, proving that he would do anything that help his motives. While I didn't agree with Krazy Monkey's Misconduct case againt him, mostly because lack of evidence, I do agree that the more Grim remains on this wiki the more violent, argumentative and uncaring for this wiki he's becoming, harming it a lot more than he helps with his rude ways and terrible personality. Not a person that I would trust to do a wholly hearted uninterested move: he always has an ulterior motive. --Starplatinum 06:32, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. No I trust Grim not to abuse the sysop powers to obtain personal details for his own use, I trust him in crushing wanton vandals and I trust his judgement about many game balance issues above pretty much anyone else on the wiki... Unfortunatly he does not understand the concept of compromise and often gives his "opinion" the weight of irrefutable fact and holds his unshakable faith in it to be a virtue. These things weaken him too much as a sysop who is most frequently active in the dirtiest parts of the wiki (A/VB, Misconduct etc...) and i would rather see him active in those areas without the percieved badge of authority that clings to sysophood--Honestmistake 09:42, 15 May 2008 (BST)
    My discussion with Grim on the talk page has made me consider this a little. Grims "style" of argument would still come into play in pretty much the same way even if he were not a sysop and so really has little bearing on his ability to do the job. I wish he could look at things a little more subjectively (and humanly) but it seems a little improbable that he will. I will state that I trust Grim not to do anything he feels would harm the Wiki's "physical" being... I am just not sure that I trust him not to give too much weight to the rules at the expense of the Wiki's purpose or to get all Hippy-like; it's "spiritual" being.--Honestmistake 15:18, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Yes/No - difficult easy to judge this one, because I can see that Grim honestly believes that he's always right about everything, and that he's doing good for the wiki. That's the problem, though: he's not always right, because nobody is always right. People say he's not childish, but the fact that he absolutely refuses to accept any responsibility for any of the disagreements he becomes involved with points to an incredibly immature individual. What worries me about Grim the most is that he often generates respect from people who see him as tough, but if he ever gained the sort of power he sometimes tries to wield, they'd horribly regret their decision to support him. Simply sees things in too restricted a range: that of black and white, when there is a whole rainbow of colour to consider. He is on record as admitting as much because he says that a rule should always be followed, whatever the circumstances. I think we can all see how narrow-minded and idealistic that is. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:40, 15 May 2008 (BST) Additionally, and adding to my last point, Grim uses his personal interpretation of the many (tangled) regulations of this wiki to attempt to get rid of contributers that he doesn't like, for whatever reason. We can see evidence of this behaviour in his bogus "impersonation" A/VB reports on both Nalikill in the past and now Tselita in the present. In the case of the latter, he's attempted to use comments made on this page to undermine other sysops by asking that they not be allowed to rule (and it's not the first time he's used that tactic, either). Really, he's just a horrible internet ego that's always been out of control, and seems all the worse now that he's got a fan club made up people that have openly threatened to destroy this wiki, and answer any and all criticism of their tactics with trolling and abusive language. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:41, 23 May 2008 (BST)
  4. No Shows an inordinate amount of disrespect for others. And I'm a little scared that I seem to be agreeing with Funt a majority of the time here. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 15:16, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. No The "ten hour debate" weakened my trust in him, further conversations have killed it. He is incapable of seeing viewpoints other then his own. - Vantar 11:03, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  6. No As funt and Vantar. Ioncannon11 23:11, 19 May 2008 (BST)
  7. No I'm sorry Grimch, but you're too much of an e-thug. The man 16:31, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  8. No - He is a Troll... and the worst kind of them, since he knows the rules and know how to make the other side looks like the bad side while he sits over his self-made mountain of reason. He does not enforce the rules because he thinks they are needed, he enforce the rules because he likes trolling innocent people. He created this page and didn't vouched anyone, and is now using the feedback of this page (which was mostly filled with input from users who claim that want to destroy the wiki) as a form to back his argument against sysops he doesnt like. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:56, 23 May 2008 (BST)
  9. No - On his promotions bid, he promised to be polite. He hasn't kept his word. In addition, I think him being a sysop is an implicit acceptance of the way he behaves. --Toejam 15:49, 26 May 2008 (BST)
  10. No - He goes crazy and shit--CyberRead240 12:11, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Abstain

  1. Abstain - As Funt. I personally find him rude and abrasive. But I have to admit, he knows what he's talking about. -- Cheese 15:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Hagnat ‎(Sysop)

Yes

  1. Yes - He may be a bit controversial himself, and does lose his way in the details sometimes, but I see him as good hearted and what he does, he does it thinking on the good of the wiki, in his own and sometimes strange POV. Even when he wants to jump over the rules, like banning permanently in a way that's not allowed, he asks first and does it because he's himself convinced that the user in question is no good. I'm for him. --Starplatinum 06:36, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Yes - the best. DanceDanceRevolution 10:50, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Yes I trust Hagnat to do what he feels best. I know he gets it wrong (probably slightly more often than most other sysops) but he is always willing to accept his mistake and remedy them. He understands that one of the key roles of the sysop is to keep things running smoothly and is willing to bend rules or skip needless buerocracy to do so. He has never done anything that isn't easily fixed and even when out shouted/argued he takes defeat gracefully. That said I think his over-reaction to the whole "Dead" thing and their alledged vote stuffing is a major mistake even though its intentions seem honest--Honestmistake 13:23, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. I still think Haggie can do a good job for the community. But he does tend to go on his own fancies too frequently.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:20, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. Yes I wouldn't trust him with my nine year old daughter (and no I don't mean it that way) but I would trust him in most matters when it pertains to the wiki. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 15:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  6. Yes - Controversial and I would suggest that he tries not to be so much, but he does get the job done. -- Cheese 15:27, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  7. Yes Yes he ignores rules, does that change the fact that nearly all of his edits have been to bring some level of improvement to the wiki?- Vantar 11:12, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  8. Hagnat is a good guy, and obviously cares about where the wiki is headed. He broke away from the cliquish "this is how its gonna be group" to be more independent and has gotten a lot more respect from the outsiders. From working with Akule on compromises to the Copyright saga, to fighting off annoying sycophant trolls who just side with whoever the in-crowd is at the time, to doing his best to make sure the wiki doesnt fall completely in the shitter even when against unsurmountable odds. Hagnat does a lot of good for the wiki, even if popular opinion doesn't believe so. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 22:22, 19 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Changed vote for purely political reasons. The Horde of Playa Haters despise him, therefore I must support him. </sarcasm> To be honest, hagnat sometimes needs some corralling by more level heads, when he stretches out too far on a limb. I saw him recently drop his illegal ban hammer in A/VB when pressured about it, so he does listen to criticism. That's all we can ask, isn't it? Someone who's attempting to judge things, and listens when criticised, and doesn't try to destroy the wiki for shits 'n' giggles? I DO think, as I said in my previous against vote, that he perhaps bought too much into his own mystique and the "fuck the rules" wikipedian philosophy, but that's no reason to burn him in his tower. Just knock on the door, instead. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:49, 21 May 2008 (BST)
  10. Yes - I agree with him that rules exist to to serve us and not the other way around. I'd like him to read a few articles like WP:Reduce and process is important, just to make sure he's aware of some of the nuances in the idea of IAR. There are some things I disagree with him about, but I get the sense that if I talked with him about them, he would at least listen, even if he wouldn't necessarily agree. --Toejam 02:57, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  11. Yes While his name might be the most boring one ever, he does alot fo work around the wiki. He's good. The man 16:32, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  12. Yes Proven to be a good, level-headed sysop who cares about the community. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:47, 27 May 2008 (BST)

No

  1. No - He's made way too many bizarre decisions and been in too much over-the-top drama of late for me to trust him anymore. Honestly, while he means well... I believe he is too erratic... --WanYao 07:20, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Hell. No. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:13, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. No -- Colbear 10:00, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. No - Abuses his privileges. Also, he is reactionary when he feels he is the slightest bit threatened. --The Malton Globetrotters#10 - MONEY TMG 11:04, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. No - Does not really think his actions through. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:48, 15 May 2008 (BST)
    No - Once, I did support Hagnat, when I thought his primary focus was the wellbeing of this wiki. However, it seems that he's bought into the idea that his personality is enough to allow him any action, seemingly based on nothing but whimsy. He even went as far as pointing to his most recent community re-election as a reason for his being right about something. That's a sign of an out of control ego, right there. I'd trust him more if he took a back seat from drama-generation (especially horrible rules lawyering that punishes new contributers) and did some wiki maintenance instead. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:45, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  6. No Jonny12 talk 16:11, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  7. No--ScoobyDooDoobie 17:40, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  8. No... No... - No... never... no... --/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 18:57, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Good God No! He abuses his power at almost every opportunity. Too often the basis of his decisions are not founded on "policy" or "guidelines", but rather "I am Hagnat". There's a reason he has the most upheld Misconduct rulings of ANY sysop ever. He also proposes horribly written policies that seek to take away the rights of the community. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 19:44, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  10. Good God No as per kid sinister because seriously trusting Hagnat on doing anything but serving his own interests/ego is like trusting a bomb to do anything but explode. Possible? Yes, but not by design. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) ;x You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild! @ 22:37, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  11. No Hagnat is the worst abuser of sysop abilities this wiki has ever seen. Not only that, but he has even stated on one of his misconduct cases that he would continue to engage in such behaviour. Also, his recent behaviour has been unimpressive, to say the least. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:47, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  12. No How many Misconduct cases does it take to show that someone is not a "trusted" user? Your presence on the Vandal page is one of the most frustrating displays of abuse ever.--The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:19, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  13. Weak no Tends toward abuse of (nonexistant) IAR policy, in contrast to other sysops' quiet reasonable use of it, but his heart is in the right place. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  14. No This is, by far, the most stuck-up, disrespectful sysop here. If anybody gets removed from sysop status because of this page, I pray it be him. He seems to think that is status is to be used not for the benefit of the wiki, but of the structuring of some kind of totalitarian wiki regime. He doesn't help the wiki, but rather tries to bend the rules and make up his own at times. His behavior is erratic and a perfect example of misconduct. Ioncannon11 23:00, 19 May 2008 (BST)
  15. No We really don't need him continuing to try to be the lord high inquisitor of good and bad faith. The way Hagnat continues to get away with such continual misuse of power is baffling. --Riseabove 16:53, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Karek ‎(Sysop)

Yes

I find karek to be a bit heavy-handed at times... I've always found that... And there are things that karek has done that I worry a little about. However, overall, I trust karek... He is not playing bias games, whatever anyone might say to the contrary, and works hard for the wiki and the community. And unlike some, when karek does make a mistake... he is the first, and I believe the most sincere, to acknowledge and correct that mistake. --WanYao 07:03, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  1. I think he's a bloody-minded idiot when it comes to debate, and he abuses ridiculous loopholes in the system to get his own way, and then acts all innocent later as if it was all an accident. However, he has changed recently, and is willing to discuss contentious issues with people, whilst still pushing the envelope of the current regulations in order to attempt to do the right thing. He's trying, I think, although in the past he's verged on Cyberbob levels of arrogance and dickery. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:48, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Karek does a good job. Simple as that. Sure, he has his problems, and he's a bit blunt sometimes, but who doesn't have their faults? More stuff, a little bit of what Funt said again, more stuff....-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:27, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Yes - As Funt. -- Cheese 15:29, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Yes - As Funty --/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 18:59, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. Weak Yes - I have had issues in the past with abuse of power. However, I do think Karek is a rather well meaning person. I think Karek can be a good sysop. I would give him another "chance". He deserves it.--The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:25, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  6. Yes Knows the rules and is very active. "Arrogant and dickish" sometimes, yes, but I'd take arrogant and effective over the inverse any day. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  7. Yes - So what if he's an asshole? As Funt.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  10:05, 19 May 2008 (BST)
  8. Yes - As Funt. Ioncannon11 23:03, 19 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Yes - Karek is fine. His judgement, while sometimes exaggerated, is most of the time right. He does not use the power-stick in his favor, neither acts against the interest of the wiki. Some people called him a mini-grim, but that couldn't be more wrong. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:59, 23 May 2008 (BST)
  10. Yes - While i find some of his opinions on matters to be silly, he still has an excellent grasp of the responsibilities of being a sysop, and works to carry those out to the best of his abilities, which is more than you can say for all but a handful of the rest of the sysops we have now. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:41, 28 May 2008 (BST)

No

  1. No - This is a hard choice. I'm still impressed that the Bureaucrats decided that his promotion bid passed, and in the time he has spent as a Sysop he has covered Grim's argumentative position pretty well until Grim's comeback, altough his nickname as "Grim Jr" would be misplaced as he doesn't always hold the same oppinion than his mentor... just most of the time. Anyways, I don't agree much with him, and his position on some issues (as the promotion of users), as well as his unapologetic nature make me doubt about his capabilities of facing something essential for a Sysop: that he may be wrong. --Starplatinum 06:44, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Similar to Grim, except less of the right idea and more of the weak moments. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:14, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. No I trust Karek not to deliberatly cause harm and I know he has all the technical ability needed for the role. I also know that he is more than willing to help folk when asked but sadly I do not trust his judgement on far too many contentious issues. Karek comes to a decision on an issue and sticks to it in a black and white way that means that if he is right and you disagree with him then you must be wrong, until he learns that the world (and the wiki) isn't always like that then i can't fully trust him.--Honestmistake 09:19, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. No --Colbear 10:01, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. No - What Honestmistake said above made me change my vote. --WanYao 13:07, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  6. No As Honest Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 15:19, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  7. No Place looks like conservapedia with all it's weirdo rulings.--ScoobyDooDoobie 17:44, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  8. No He honestly means well, but he still fumbles over and over again. He is improving at his job though. And learn how to form an debate, seriously! --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 19:49, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  9. No I regret passing his promotion bid, while he has begun to so signs of change he still does have a tendency to be too stubborn for his own good. - Vantar 11:09, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  10. Spam/dupe -is the vote Karek gives to most suggestions regardless of whether they are bad or good. The man 16:26, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Cheeseman ‎(Sysop)

Yes

  1. Yes Decent enough. And since the issue is about trust on the Wiki... I can support that but he needs some work on hearding cats. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 15:28, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Yes - Not the most effective Sysops... but I trust him...--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 19:00, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Yes - still new to the sysop team, therefore the trust i deposited in him on his promotion bid remains --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:01, 23 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Yes Decent very kind give supportive advise does the job correctly i trust you.--Fanglord2 13:36, 28 May 2008 (BST)
  5. Yes - Good dude.--Nallan (Talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)

No

  1. No - Like my 73 vote below. I'd like Sysops able to defend themselves against some literal rule interpretation, but some Sysops haven't the knowledge necessary for doing that. I may be wrong, of course, but you never proved to be a specialist on the matter. You're more of a bandwagoner, and when you try to present you own POV, you do it in a very subjective, weak manner. Study the rules and you may have more of a fighting chance on a discussion, or may know better when to pick a fight with someone far older on this than you. --Starplatinum 06:54, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Weaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:14, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. No - How is this guy even a sysop? --Colbear 10:02, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Weak No = I like Cheeseman / Kraz Monkey, and he's well-intentioned... But his forays into policy tend to be iffy. --WanYao 12:39, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. not enough I trust Krazy Monkey with everything except the more complex A/VB issues and even then its not so much that I think he would mean harm... just not sure he is right to deal with those issues!--Honestmistake 13:09, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  6. Terminal Failure: this sysop was too quick to jump on the Sarumo/Anime bandwagon as it abused arbitration to essentially drive a hothead from the wiki for reacting to sarumo's horrible, horrible nature. Far too keen to wield the banhammer. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:51, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  7. No--ScoobyDooDoobie 17:46, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  8. No - He likes to make re-reactionary policies in response to getting Vandal Banned. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 20:05, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  9. No As Kid Sinister. A bit too "clique-y"--The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:26, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  10. No - Too cliquey. I don't like him very much, either. Ioncannon11 23:04, 19 May 2008 (BST)
  11. No As used in the in sentence "I have no clue why you promoted someone who doesn't seem to understand what being a sysop entails." --Riseabove 16:58, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Nubis ‎(Sysop)

Yes Author's Keep? I had internet problems. I'm back and did some work. whatever.--– Nubis 22:22, 16 May 2008 (BST)

  1. Yes - I decided it'd be bad form if I distrusted everyone and Nubis is the least faggiest of all you fagholes. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) ;x You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild! @ 22:31, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  2. I don't actually know much about him, but from what I've seen so far (admittedly not much), he doesn't seem like a colossal douche. I'm not sure if I should really vote "yes", but I don't vote "no" on this one.--Colbear 23:53, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Yes Doesn't make an ass of himself on the VB page. That's important. --The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:28, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Yes - He came back and has done quite a lot to help out in the past few days. -- Cheese 15:29, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. Yes Oh what the hell, I can be nice once. He does a good job. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 22:18, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  6. He's back, therefore my vote changes. I haven't really ever had a problem with his moderation skills. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:28, 19 May 2008 (BST)
  7. I may not agree with all or many of the things he has done here as a user, but i still trust him to use his sysop abilities and his judgement well enough to see the whole picture. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:27, 26 May 2008 (BST)
  8. Yes - Opposite to Grim - he is the balance on the other side of the scale.--Nallan (Talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)

No

  1. No - Not around enough, only operates in bursts (ex: May 12th), and those bursts usually end up with him voting on suggestions. And the last time I checked, you don't need SysOp powers to vote. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 06:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)
    So, the "burst of activity" on the 12th wasn't enough of a return now that I have the internets back? Geez. It wasn't just voting. It was other shit. --– Nubis 22:45, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  2. No - He has made a point of appearing every once in a while just to argue over or perpetuate his own unhelpful and unnecesary status as a Sysop. He may have wanted to improve the wiki in the past, but he doesn't care anymore. Is not caring something positive? I think not. --Starplatinum 07:06, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. No - Another one I never see around so can't form an opinion to trust or appreciate. --WanYao 07:08, 15 May 2008 (BST)
    Never see him. It's a shame - he's a really great guy. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:14, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. No If he is active it's behind the scenes doing stuff I don't understand!--Honestmistake 13:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)
    I edited your comment and corrected the grammar. --– Nubis 22:45, 16 May 2008 (BST)
    You put a ' in its and felt the need to draw attention to it? Now i REALLY don't trust you ;)--Honestmistake 10:18, 19 May 2008 (BST)
    I was desperate! I was willing to do anything to score an edit! :)--– Nubis 01:52, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  5. He's not here! --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:52, 15 May 2008 (BST) Now, he's back: I still have nothing to judge him on, really, regarding how he performs as a sysop. Given his time away, and his dislike for open discussion without resorting to flames, I can happily leave this as a No. Why would I trust someone who flames first and asks questions later? It's a sign of the worst kind of internet user. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:22, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  6. He makes me laugh whenever he does show up. Wish he would come back.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:21, 15 May 2008 (BST)
    I'm back now.--– Nubis 22:45, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  7. No - because of what he did to his userpage once the dead started to attack the dhpd. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:03, 23 May 2008 (BST)
  8. NO I find hes quiet rude when writing in the Talk:Suggestions pages he dosent even realy give advise just critiszes you and then tell you your spaming (thats just my opion).--Fanglord2 13:36, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Seventythree ‎(Sysop)

Yes

  1. Yes - 73 is always even-handed and level-headed, even in the midst of the worst drama. He may be new, but that does not take away from my trust in and respect for him as a sysop. --WanYao 07:09, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Yes Like AHLG; 73 does the best he can and always tries to minimalize drama. While still a little unsure of himself on some things, at least he will ask for advice from those with more experience rather than avoid those area's. In any event his confidence is growing and I have not seen him make a bad ruling yet.--NotWansClone:) 13:34, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Yes - he's active, he's not at the centre of every second controversy, he's polite to people. All round good guy. We need more of these in the sysop team. Just because he doesn't state his opinion by etching it in acid on the foreheads of his enemies, that doesn't mean he's weak. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:55, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Again, as Funt.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:21, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. Again, as Funt. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 15:30, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  6. Yes - He's like baby Gnome. Gets the job done without diving into things. -- Cheese 15:31, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  7. Yes - Of course Jonny12 talk 16:12, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  8. Yes - of all the sysops, he fucks up the least. That's saying something right there. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 20:07, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Yes - Unlike AHLG... I can vote yes instead of Abstain on 73--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 21:11, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  10. Yes He's fair and he is able to remain very neutral against drama, something that most Sysops seem to get trapped in. --Rogue 04:58, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  11. Yes As Funt. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  12. Yes/Totally -Very helpful. Ioncannon11 23:07, 19 May 2008 (BST)
  13. Yes - As Funt, and he wins the "Politest Sysop Award".  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  10:09, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  14. Yes - with vista leaving, i guess we have a new candidate for the best sysop award :P --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:05, 23 May 2008 (BST)

No

  1. No - He's not evil, just naive and misinfomed. I'd really wish he weren't a Sysop, and then put himself for promotion when he really studied the wiki's rules. Now, you really need to have more of a clue, and then you'll found yourself a lot of a valuable input on any case. Then, I'd want you ruling or contesting rulings, but nowadays I don't trust you enough. --Starplatinum 06:47, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Weaaaaaaaaaaaaaak --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:14, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. No Like Star. --The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:44, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Swiers ‎(Sysop)

Yes

  1. Yes - Inactive, but one of the most competent and level-headed people we have... It's sad he's not able to be more involved of late. --WanYao 07:04, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Yes - Great member of the wiki/UD community but i rarely see him doing anything sysopy, but if he was to i'd trust him.--xoxo 09:27, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. I'd like it if he did more psyopsy stuffs.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Yes - When he's here, he's good. -- Cheese 15:35, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. I have no problems with swiers ability to make decisions for the wiki. The ammount of tools he has done inside and outisde the wiki shows that he cares for this community. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:43, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  6. Yes I say we clone him so he's always around, even though any one of him is rarely around. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  7. Yes I like this guy and would trust him to be as fair and unbiased as someone could be--Kristi of the Dead 15:04, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  8. Yes- Yes, he definitely may be inactive at times, but is undoubtedly an outstanding contributor. One only has to glance at his user page to appreciate his merits. Ioncannon11 23:10, 19 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Changed vote, due to comments from contributers I trust, who have jogged my memory of what a great contributer Swiers always has been. (Inactivity a side issue, in this case.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:46, 21 May 2008 (BST)
  10. Yes - A good guy. As WanYao.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  10:11, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  11. Yes - Good man The man 16:22, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  12. Yes - A very nice guy. DanceDanceRevolution 09:30, 29 June 2008 (BST)
  13. Yes - When I see the things he does around the Wiki, he seems competent in what he does.--drawde DORIS•RR•RRF•RI! 22:53, 30 July 2008 (BST)
  14. Yes - From what experience I've had with him I think I could say I trust him.--Nallan (Talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)

No

  1. No - He's helpful and one of the few guys that really showed a great interest in improving both wiki and game experience, but in his time as a Sysop he has proven himself not interested in presenting his oppinion on any important or unimportant matter. He's just wanting to get demoted, so he can live in peace and without worriying about drama: let him be. --Starplatinum 07:02, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Never see him. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:15, 15 May 2008 (BST)
    Mostly inactive, therefore out of touch with current policy, therefore shouldn't be a sysop. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Thari‎ (Sysop)

Yes

  1. His judgement is fair and for the best of the community. He is inactive ? Big deal. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:40, 16 May 2008 (BST)

No

  1. No - One of the "cool guys club" member of the past, he just logs on every once in a while to drop a whitty phrase over an administrative page or maybe some important discussion and then dissappears... a day, a week or a month may pass until the process repeats: it's the same for him, he doesn't care. A dinosaur bandwagoner that should have been removed some year and a half ago. --Starplatinum 07:11, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. No - Who? --WanYao 12:40, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Thari....Hmm....I haven't seen the guy in forever.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:24, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Mostly inactive, therefore out of touch with current policy, therefore shouldn't be a sysop. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. No I don't like how Hagnut can say that his inactive status is ok, but that is a sin for other sysops. Just goes to show you the "Good Old Boy" network is in place here.--The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:41, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  6. Weak no Never met em. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  7. No - Inactive sysops shouldn't be sysops.--Nallan (Talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)

The General ‎(Sysop)

Yes

  1. Yes - He's kinda innactive for my taste, but I do trust him. He can make a good decission or avoid to make a contenious one at all, but his status as one of the big fishes of the wiki was stripped from him a while ago, and he needs to be more active or decide not to be a Sysop anymore: in this case, I'll grant him the right to make the choice, because he has earned it, making no harm at all. --Starplatinum 07:15, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Yes Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this "surgeon general"? or am I confused? ~If I am confused, my vote becomes a no.The man 16:36, 22 May 2008 (BST)

No

  1. Never see him, too many old fuckups. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:15, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. No never trusted him when he was here and don't miss him now that he's not.--Honestmistake 09:23, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Who? --WanYao 12:43, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. As Bob.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:23, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. Mostly inactive, therefore out of touch with current policy, therefore shouldn't be a sysop. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  6. I have seen him wrongly ruling in several cases, and agreeing with the deletion of pages that shouldn't. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:35, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  7. Weak no Never met em. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  8. No - again, not active enough.--Nallan (Talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Vantar ‎(Bureaucrat)

Yes

  1. Weak yes - I do not support his current position as a Bureaucrat, but I do recognize that he has managed it well. The thing is that he has made no breaktrough innovation on the wiki whatsoever, nor has he demonstrated an extensive knowledge of wiki rules... If for leveled headness alone he was choosen as a Sysop and then a Bureaucrat... But I do support a leveled and calm behaviour, and any decision he made wasn't all that bad, and someone may come and prove me wrong showing me that he made X contribution while I wasn't looking (probably on the location pages). Altogether he has my weak support, I just wish he weren't a Bureaucrat. --Starplatinum 07:23, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. yes and no Made an excellent (if somewhat absent) Sysop.... since he became a Crat i don't think I have seen him excercise his judgement more than twice!--Honestmistake 09:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Yes He makes the right decisions Jonny12 talk 16:14, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Yes - although he seems fairly inactive, his judgements seem based on finding a fair solution, and not on ego-tormenting other users. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:29, 15 May 2008 (BST)

No

  1. Weaaaaaaaaaaaaak --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:15, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. I'd like him more if he was active. Er.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:23, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. No - I stopped trusting you the day you assumed bad faith on a vandal banning case and it took 10 hours of constant discussion in IRC to get you to restore that fundamental right, and even then, you didnt change your verdict despite losing the foundation of your position (As well as pretty much everything else in it). Id sooner trust a flesh eating bacteria than you. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:52, 16 May 2008 (BST)
    Also, for his ruling on the Hagnat misconduct case on the 31st of January, here. Scroll down for the ruling, which was essentailly: "Hagnat will keep breaking the rules, even if we punish him, so why punish him?" He then tried to punish me (the guy who brought the case) in that ruling. Fucker. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:13, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Weak no Never met em. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  5. No Grim changed my mind. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 22:30, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Abstain

  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)
  2. Abstain Who is he again? I forgot. The man 16:20, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Vista ‎(Sysop)

Yes

  1. Yes - I like his administration style more than that of any of the other Sysops around. I'd like him being promoted to Bureaucrat and Bureaucrats conceded more powers (yeah, you heard it right, MORE) just to see what he would do with them. If anything, he should remain a Sysop as he is, because even in cases with lots of drama he knows how to handle the heat and present a valuable oppinion that cools down the ambient a few degrees. --Starplatinum 07:27, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Yes - Slow but solid ... --WanYao 12:48, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Because Vista has always done an awesome job, in my opinion.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:22, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Yes I can't rememer any significant issue that would generate any distrust in his abilities. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 15:33, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  5. Yes - He feels so strongly about things that he once cast the Gibbering Expletives of Pandemonium spell. That's dedication for you. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:34, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  6. damn straight Funts link did it for me (I had forgotten who was responsible for that little rant) Only problem is he is not so active in public these days--Honestmistake 17:05, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  7. "Vista is by far the best sysop this wiki ever had." by Oscar Wilde --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:33, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  8. Yes As Honestmistake. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Yes I trust him to be true to his job --Kristi of the Dead 15:08, 18 May 2008 (BST)
  10. Yes - As Kristi.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  10:15, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  11. Yes - SP1 makes the vista OS a bit better. :P The man 16:17, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  12. Yes - Vista was one of the great things about the wiki. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:49, 27 May 2008 (BST)

No

  1. Retard. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:15, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. No - He's never around consistently. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 20:10, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. No After that whole impersonation debacle on the A/VB page I can't see how anyone can support him. Hagnut's little quip there just adds to that stupidity. --The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:48, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Zombie slay3r (Sysop)

Yes

  1. Weak yes - Because he is a good janitor, and when not he knows he has been wrong. But I'd wish he were more of a important player on discussions that the "janitor alone" role he has been accomplishing. The weak support comes mainly for that. --Starplatinum 07:33, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  2. yes Again.. if the issue is about Trust. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 15:34, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  3. The job is often described as janitor, so you can't really complain if someone follows that description. He's not a hothead, doesn't mean he's weak. (Although, let's face it, ever since Cyberbob demoted himself and never managed to claw back the mantle, he's been trolling the sysops for crumbs from the table - so accusations from him come with a free portion of salt.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:38, 15 May 2008 (BST)
  4. Agree with Funt. My only concern with zombie slayer is that he doesnt voice his opinion that much on policies and other discussions, and these are important too. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:31, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  5. Yes Actually seems more like a wikignome than AHLG is. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (BST)
  6. Yes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The man (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
  7. Yes - A capable janitor, and a nice guy. --Toejam 16:42, 26 May 2008 (BST)
  8. Yes - 4 da cool name.--Nallan (Talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)

No

  1. Weaaaaaaaaaaaaaak --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:15, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Abstain

  1. 'Abstain - 'Nuff said. --WanYao 21:33, 15 May 2008 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Open_Discussion/System_Operators,_which_ones_do_you_trust&oldid=2362924"