UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions/Archive1

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Shouldn't this page have the default bulk? Or is it being written right now? --ALIENwolve 03:20, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT)

It was being written. I've done most of it, I'll be tweaking some of it as the week goes by. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 04:00, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT)

So now that Zar's in the discussion page.. what do we do? Talk abotu him? Is there voting? --Jak Rhee 22:08, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT)

You can talk about him, ask questions that you think will give an insight into whether he'd make a good moderator, etc. There's no real voting, because I think elections would get evil and messy, but instead it's kindof a forum for comments, letting people make their opinions known on the candidate's suitability or otherwise. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 23:47, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Pity you can't nominate other people. I'd suggest myself, but whilst I have the desire to moderate (and some solid history of being a mod elsewhere), I have no time whatsoever... I already barely have the time to keep Bug Reports cleaned up; nor do I meet the 500 edits criteria (I'm a hint above 250, it seems)... but one person who's always struck me as unbiased and active has been MorthBabid. Hm. Anything stopping me from bugging the chap to post themselves here? *sheepish look, then goes off to hunt for MB* -pinkgothic 02:54, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)

There's actually nothing against nominating someone else - they just have to accept the nomination... -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 02:38, 20 February 2006 (GMT)
Oh! I wasn't aware of that. Thank you, Odd Starter, for pointing that out to me. I'll give MorthBabid a proper review and then, if he meets the requirements (I'm not sure if he has 500 edits, etc), you'll hear back from me :) Muchas gracias. ;) -pinkgothic 16:50, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

No Amazing as Mod Petition

As A user on this wiki I believe that giving Modship to any user who displays poor behaviour is a bad precedent. Furthermore promoting user with out going through the proper steps is in violation of wiki policy. So this is our way of expressing our outrage.

Users in Support of this Petition

  1. --Technerd 05:50, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  2. --Jorm 05:51, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  3. -Nubis 05:52, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  4. --Vanankyte 05:53, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  5. --Zaruthustra-Mod 05:53, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  6. --Karlsbad 05:55, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  7. --Lucero Capell 06:06, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  8. --Grim s 06:24, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  9. --furtim 06:55, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  10. ----Jacquie 10:10, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  11. --Denzel Washington 18:08, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  12. --hagnat talk • wcdz 21:03, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  13. --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:11, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  14. --Slicer 00:46, 8 April 2006 (BST) (For the love of God, people.)
  15. --Stroth 01:16, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  16. --Mpaturet 01:19, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  17. MaulMachine 17:28, 9 April 2006 (BST)
  18. --Kevan 04:24, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  19. --Mia K (sotss) 04:29, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  20. --Andrew McM W! 21:23, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  21. --Conndraka 23:08, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  22. --Catriona McM 19:02, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  23. --flareblade77 17:52, 20 April 2006 (EST)

Users NOT in Support of this Petition

Yes to the bureaucrats decision

(I didn't like you're alternate opinion, so rather than editing it I'm adding this. RedKnight)

Who and who isn't given the authority of a mod is ultimately the decision of the bureaucrats of this wiki, namely Kevan and Odd Starter (who has since been demoted from bureaucrat duty as a result of promoting Amazing). This decision is not, and never has been, a vote and I stand behind the decision that Odd Starter had made.

  1. --RedKnight 06:26, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  2. --Toast Boy 08:07, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  3. --Gleidus 08:58, 7 April 2006 (EST)
  4. --Whitehouse 23:45, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  5. --Cyberbob240CDF | Arb 10:36, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Note from Amazing

I'd appreciate a bit more than an hour or two (and maybe one Mod action?) to prove myself worthy. That said, you're more than free to organize a petition of course. (interesting timestamps there, btw. Just saying.) :) -- Amazing Mod SGP McZed's™ 05:56, 7 April 2006 (BST)

No. This was an extremely poor decision, and Odd Starter should be taken to task for it.--Jorm 05:57, 7 April 2006 (BST)
It should be noted that we are debating the NATURE of the promotion rather than the promotion itself. Therefore we are entitled to remark on the sudden and unsupported promotion. If you actually do screw up, the petition would be in your Talk page rather than in the Moderation/Promotions page.--Karlsbad 05:58, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Oh for sure, I said you were more than entitled to speak as to anything you wish. (of course, preferrably in a civil tone - goes without saying.) I wonder though.. Is there a rule that Mods cannot Mod someone else at will? -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 06:01, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Actually, yes. From the top of the Promotions page: "Moderators and Bureaucrats cannot assign promotions unless the request has gone through this page." --Lucero Capell 06:04, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Well, as with any rule, there are cases in which there can be exceptions. This is a long-standing truth in any given scenerio. That said, I appreciate this much dedication to the Wiki's well-being. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 06:08, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Way to hand-wave around the rules there. Should there be an exception to all your rulings if the rest of the users believe that it is better for the Wiki's well-being as well?--Karlsbad 06:10, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Actually, supporting Odd Starter has no bearing on my adherance to the rules, but I can see where you'd get that from my somewhat vague text. Anywho, it seems Odd was within the right, on the whole, anyway. See Zod's reply at the bottom of this page. I'll bow out of the discussion here now unless specifically asked back. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 06:12, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Hmm, I would think that a person who asked for Moderation powers would know the rules himself. However, it should be noted that it is accepted that moderation powers comes from the page, and this group is in support of that.--Karlsbad 06:05, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I'm personally surprised GANKBUS didn't do this ourselves. We cannot take credit here! Carry on.Rasher 17:55, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Comments

It's like the Amazing_should_not_be_an_arbitrator web-page, but with an actual point. But hey, am I the only person who thinks that Amazing will have been booted from the wiki in 5 days? I seriously think this is a major "put up or shut up" moment, and nothing from Amazing's previous work would suggest that giving him the power he feels entitled to is a good idea. Anyway, I hope that this is mainly a petition about the nature of the promotion. If it is not, disregard my vote--Kb

No, you may not be the only person who thinks Amazing may be booted from the wiki, but you should at least give him a chance. Odd Starter did, and he has fought with Amazing plenty of times. Show some decorum and let the chips fall where they may. As far as the nature of the promotion, check above where it is quoted, " A sysop is what we call a moderator (ie, they can delete, protect, ban, etc). A bureaucrat can make other people into sysops, and also gets all sysop abilities." Sounds like Odd Starter was in his boundaries when he made his decision. That covers the 'nature' of the promotion. Just because a decision is unpopular doesn't make it wrong. --Zod Rhombus 06:08, 7 April 2006 (BST)
I am. My point is that he WILL be booted because of his actions, but that is personal opinion. It is more the complete disregard for the laws they themselves have set up that we take offense at. --Karlsbad 06:11, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Well, that is not a moderate opinion, time will tell, though. --Zod Rhombus 06:21, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Pardon me, I know its little of me, but did I call it, or did I call it? I can't actually gloat, however, as it would require Amazing to be banned in the next 4 days now.--Karlsbad 05:54, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Hey, if you want to look at being De-Modded for not violating the rules as something you 'called', go ahead. -- Amazing 06:05, 8 April 2006 (BST)
If I was able to call that you'd be de-modded because you attempted to squeltch an image that interestingly was critical of you and failed to do so in the agreed-upon matter, then I should rather be making bets in Vegas. Furthermore, it is again non-relevent what you believe the rules were; the popular conscensus (and furthermore, the powerful/enlightened concensus of Odd Starter and Zaru) is that you failed to be an acceptable moderator. --Karlsbad 08:03, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Wow, I missed where you said "you'll be de-modded when you attempt to squeltch an image" - Anyway, I was following the rules of the Wiki. If all copyrighted works can be uploaded claiming "Fair Use" then there'd be no reason for the "Copyright Violation" note on the upload page. Arguing with that, which I know you will do, is simple dismissal of fact. -- Amazing 18:23, 8 April 2006 (BST)
You would, if you read correctly- my text was that I did not call these series of events, so therefore I could not actually claim that I called it. And I think that the crux of the debate isn't actually about the image itself. [Though it could be argued that it wasn't the copyrighted form, as there are alterations to it- fair use be damned, it would not be a copyrighted image] It is moreso that you made this decision upon an image used by a group that disagrees with you, therefore acting in an implied biased manner against them, which means that the image should have been referred and deleted by a non-involved moderator to avoid any problems. Since you did not, you should incomprehension of the meaning and responsibilities of your position, which caused you to be de-modded. --Karlsbad
It was the first image in violation of Wiki policy that was uploaded during my Modship. ono u loze teh wiki warz omg. You're a troll, as are Grim S and others. The Moderators are inept. The lot of you have gone against reality in your silly ploy to get me de-modded. LibrarianBrent says it all, and any arguement is just biased "working backward from what you want" bullshit. -- Amazing 23:19, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Amazing,.. please come to grip with reality. You deleted stuff that offended you. Stuff that isn't under copyright at all,.. no matter how you try to twist it into corporate swings, copyright laws and what not. You would still be part of the Mod Team at this very moment if you'd consulted your colleagues about your 'Objections' before deleting that stuff. Even so,.. it would've been wiser if you convinced another Mod to delete it.. But you didn't. Face it.. You ain't Mod Material.--Vykos 23:31, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Actually, it is under copyright. Please do not lie so brazenly. -- Amazing 23:35, 8 April 2006 (BST)
C'mon man! stop believing those dreams.. You'd only have a possible legal case if somebody would exploid that damn pic and print it on 10000 T-Shirts and sell it for comercial gain.( and even then such a case would be a longshot from your side) Other than that every parody is free game.. Please man, save yourself some diginity. You know I'm right. That parody is legit in every way, under every copyright law.--Vykos 23:48, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Since the promotion was made without following the guidelines on the promotions page i have reported Odd Starter for misconduct. --Grim s 06:25, 7 April 2006 (BST)

The role of the moderator is ultimately subordinate to the community. The moderators must work closely with the community; it is the very nature of their work. The community OVERWHELMINGLY rejected Amazing's previous attempt to gain a moderatorship. So much so that the attempt was withdrawn within hours simply due to the sheer volume of complaints against Amazing. Appointing him in this manner, even temporarily, shows a severe lapse in judgement and is an insult to and attack upon the entire Wiki community. Let's just assume Odd Starter was temporarily insane or something and revert this madness and forget it ever happened. Anything else would be a complete disgrace to the system. furtim 07:00, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Gotta jump in for a minor correction. I removed the listing myself, and I could have swung the 3 positive votes needed at the time. Simply look to the Arbitration petition against me. Some of those folks would have approved me. - I retracted my bid for Modship because I didn't want to deal with what I saw to be the flaming and trolling by certain voters, since at the time I was sure it would just all be blamed upon me. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 07:05, 7 April 2006 (BST)
If you would have had to 'swing' the minimum votes, doesn't that tell you something? -Nubis 07:06, 7 April 2006 (BST)
In my statement I clearly said "at the time" meaning the short period of time in which it was posted. Also the term "swing" refers to me actively calling in someone to vote if they so choose, and does not cover people who may come to the page othewise. Hey, anyone can message their pals and suggest they vote a certain way. I could have done that as well, but I chose to simply circumvent the flame war that was brewing. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 07:19, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Copyright Stuff!

Since I've seen a lot aof crud about Copyright, here you go! [1]. Feel free to trounce whoever you feel like with this stuff. --Mia Kristos 23:44, 8 April 2006 (BST)

If you tried to support Amazing with this post you kinda failed Mia,.. looking at them Copyright Laws..You could still delete that link. ;) --Vykos 23:56, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Actually, I know he's wrong. I mostly wanted to stay out of this, so I posted that site for other people to prove it ;) --Mia Kristos 23:58, 8 April 2006 (BST)
In that case I'm sorry if I offended you with my last comment my dear Mia. Good thing you posted that link! ;) --Vykos 23:59, 8 April 2006 (BST)
(Insert annoyingly sweet sing-song here) You're welcome! --Mia Kristos 00:01, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Look up Fair Use and what it doesn't cover instead. -- Amazing 00:05, 9 April 2006 (BST)
To lazy. Link me. --Mia Kristos 00:13, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Better yet, I'll give you the phone number for the US Copyright office. 202) 707-5959 - That's who I talk to when I have a question, instead of this bullshit "LOOK @ PAEGES ON TEH INTARWEB" non-point people make. -- Amazing 00:23, 9 April 2006 (BST)
As I sit here, I'm thinking you actually won't call though, so here. "the purpose and character of the use", and "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." should be noted. It wasn't Fair Use at all. People who say it was - surprise - know nothing about it. (Or ignore it in light of their personal hatred.) -- Amazing 00:39, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Contrats Amazing, you actually read it. Now understand it. If you knew anything about US Law (and it's apparent you don't), the phrase "purpose and character of the use" refers to the commercial use of the derivative work (and even this is not considered as much in courts today). This is a non-commercial use of the work. The "effect of the use on the potential market" is negligible. The image was already available, you're not loosing any "customers" *coughcough* over it. If anything, you've gained traffic. Neither section cited applies. Now if you'd like to read some more (and hopefully take time to comprehend), read (or at least browse) the two applicable court cases I cited (there are others, but these two set court precedent).
You don't have a leg to stand on, Amazing. The use is fair use, you just don't like it. In any case, it's not like it matters. Courts weigh the four "pillars" of Fair Use when making their decision, there's no real "litmus" test. Until then, the word on the wiki is "Yes, it is fair use." I have a box of Kleenexes if you'd like them. --Lucero Capell 00:58, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Actually, it isn't. I can see how you, violator of the law, would work hard to obscure the truth and make himself seem in the clear. -- Amazing 01:03, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Amazing, put up or shut up. Give some support for your argument, or just back down reasonably. Lucero has provided his case, and all you've responded with is 'No it's not,' and 'do your own research.' If you think that the image is seriously in violation of fair use, back it up with some bloody evidence. -Nubis A.R.S.E. 01:06, 9 April 2006 (BST)
I have, but of course it's in this mess of flame-crap. This is why I tell people to go look. They haven't looked at the "value of the property" section of the Fair Use info. Here's your link. http://www.copyright.gov - Look it the fug up. "Fair Use" Jesus Christ. -- Amazing 03:52, 9 April 2006 (BST)
If you think anyone is going to do the work to prove your point for you, you're wrong. What I'm doing is simple, and that is giving you a chance to go back and find what is 'lost in the mess of flame-crap' (Since I'm sure you've already found it, as you've been saying that this whole time), put it here for us, and actually make an argument as to how the image is damaging to you or your so called 'business.' If you can't take the time to do that, all you are doing is arguing to get the last word in. Regardless of your response, I've had my fill of this drama. -Nubis A.R.S.E. 07:09, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Amazing is wrong,.. sue me ;)--Vykos 00:14, 9 April 2006 (BST)
God, what a self-absorbed prick. -- Amazing 00:23, 9 April 2006 (BST)
God may be self-absorbed, but I don't think I'm she's a prick. --Mia Kristos 00:29, 9 April 2006 (BST)
That was to Vykos. Pay attention. (I see you may have seen that, but you never know.) -- Amazing 00:39, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Pfffff,.. you don't honestly think I'd be calling 1-800-WHOGIVESAFUCK from the Netherlands, do you? Your Copyright rantings are based on nothing. Get a grip Amazing. If you would read those Copyright pages like they are, instead of how you want them to be read, you would've come to the conclussion that the Parody of your 'profile pic' is free game. --Vykos 00:36, 9 April 2006 (BST)
That was to Mia. Pay attention. You have no knowledge of the subject and are just spouting whatever comes to your mind. It's also not a parody, it's a direct copy. Again, you're just twisting things and outright lying. -- Amazing 00:39, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Sounds like someone else we know, eh? --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:43, 9 April 2006 (BST)
I linked the proof that I know and always knew what I was talking about. -- Amazing 00:58, 9 April 2006 (BST)
You know what would make this go really quick? If you two would post links and quotes of what you're reading. --Mia Kristos 00:44, 9 April 2006 (BST)
OK,.. it's Amazing's party and I'm lying, no need for quoting stuff! Amazing should sue the one who created the anti-Amazing template and report to my talk page as soon as he's got a case. I'll even testify in his benefit!--Vykos 00:51, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Works for me. -- Amazing 00:58, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing: you have no clue what you're talking about. The modifications to your image fall into parody and are protected, regardless of the copyright status of the image. Trust me: for many, many years I wrote/ran EvilPeople,INC., a site that sat on both sides of the copyright line multiple times. I've paid more than enough money in legal fees to learn about this. Unsurprisingly, you're wrong. Anyways: in order to claim damages you have to prove that damage was done *and* that it was done by the image itself and not your consistently churlish behavior. I expect that if you'd just, you know, shut the fuck up for a couple days, people might actually start thinking you're something other than a troll.--Jorm 05:28, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Listen man, I've proven my case time and again - and not surprisingly - you're doing what everyone else has done and you're side-stepping. You're taking the point where I am right and saying: "You are wrong about A because you'd have to prove B." Well guess what, proving damage resulted as per the usage of the image will never be accepted by shlubs like you that work backward from the truth, toward what you wish to be the case. Go back to abusing your players on Nexus and leave the good Game Mod alone. -- Amazing 06:03, 9 April 2006 (BST)
You haven't proven anything. This, by the way, is why no one wants you as a moderator and why you will likely NEVER be one: "Go back to abusing your players on Nexus and leave the good Game Mod alone." --Jorm 06:28, 9 April 2006 (BST)
A friend of mine (great guy) tried playing Nexus and got killed by you personally several times with your omnipotent powers. Apparently it was enough to make him quit after a couple tries. Feel free to point out how my statement wasn't absolutely true. Just curious as to what you'd say. Use my talk page though. -- Amazing 18:28, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Lets let whatever crack squads of law ninjas that gets called in settle this. Nobody is getting convinced of anything. --Zaruthustra-Mod 07:22, 9 April 2006 (BST)


OK, You want a Legal awnser? From the U.S. perspective...

Any unauthorized use of a copyrighted work(A legal device that provides the owner the right to control how a creative work is used. A copyright is comprised of a number of exclusive rights, including the right to make copies, authorize others to make copies, make derivative works,( a new work based upon an original work to which enough original creative work has been added so that the new work represents an original work of authorship. Examples of derivative works include a translation of a book into another language, a jazz version of a popular tune and a movie based on a play.) sell and market the work and perform the work.)other than fair use.( A law that authorizes the use of copyrighted materials for certain purposes without the copyright owner's permission. Generally, uses intended to further scholarship, education or an informed public are considered fair use, but recent years have seen severe limits placed on the amount of a work that can be reproduced under the fair use rule. ) Uses can range from outright plagiarism (Passing off someone else's work as your own, whether word for word or merely the creative ideas Even if permission is granted, putting your name on someone else's work is still plagiarism and is unethical within artistic, scientific, academic and political communities.) to using a portion of a photograph in a CD-ROM. The copyright owner may file a lawsuit to stop the infringement and collect damages from the infringer, provided the owner has registered her copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Some people may ask what this means? Legally it means this: If the image is actually Coppyrighted by Amazing, he controls the image and the right to control any derived images from it. However if it is not properly regestered the "Parodys" are legal. Now if it is regestered, and is determined to be under the "Fair Use" then the "Parody" in question still doesnt meet standards as the original work is not cited. If the creator of the "Parody" added a tag line saying based on the work of "Amazing" (original work located here:xxx) then it does. It's my beleif that this is the reason Coppyrighted material is discouraged on the Wiki. Conndraka 23:27, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Problem is, does USA law even apply here? Look, unless somebody is a lawyer who's specialised in international copyright law this is all just hot air. Copyright is already tricky stuff in the most clear cases, let alone on the internet. thats why it costs companies huge amounts in laywer fees, and non of it is really important unless Amazing will sue. enforcement is ten tenths of the law. If it does or doesn't have copyright isn't the real issue. The real issue is should it be used like it has on this wiki. And this whole "copyright" trainwreck is just a spin-off of the fact that people used a picture that represents amazing for what' s ordinary flame baiting. While people might or might not like Amazing for all that has happend lets at least all pretend that we have some semblance of mature adults.--Vista W! 10:00, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Agreed. for the most part. My point was that if people want to get persnikity and discuss the use of the Hammer of Lawtm they probibly ought to know an example of what would be said by most lawyers dealing with the situation. Unfortunatly we get into the situation where some of the users on the Wiki are not adults, legally or otherwise. But gosh it would be nice if we could all pretend :)

Promotion Blitz

I've been thinking while on my wikivacation - I don't want to feel the need to go on wikivacations on a regular basis. But if we don't get more moderators to distribute the load, I suspect this sort of stuff is going to happen on a regular basis. With the amount of traffic here, I'm guessing a nice sweet-spot would be a good 10-15 moderators. But we're not getting nearly that many candidates stepping up (though I think they're out there, personally).

So, I think we should work hard on attracting as many Moderators as we can. Specifically, I think that for the next month at least, we should loosen the guidelines on what we expect of Moderators, and allow anyone who feels that they'd like to become a moderator to do so. In particular, drop the time and activity requirements to one month and 100 edits respectively, and announce these plans throughout the wiki (I believe it's possible to put a banner up in the primary skin that's visible on all pages, and I think I know how to do it). Then, for the next month or so, encourage users to nominate themselves, and most importantly, start nominating other people. Let's be a tad more proactive about this.

Does anyone have any objections to this kind of plan? -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 07:40, 5 April 2006 (BST)

I wouldn't object to this plan, if you increased the significant time with the community portion for those with less edits. It's very easy to get 500 edits in two months from just the suggestion pages. But you can spend months without touching the suggestion pages and get a good raport within the community. --RedKnight 04:49, 7 April 2006 (BST)
I whole heartedly agree. I also think that trolling needs to become a actionable offense, so we can excise this pointless drama from the wiki. --Zaruthustra-Mod 04:51, 7 April 2006 (BST)

One of the problems (in my opinion) is the painfully long two week discussion period. It means that, even if we had the required number of users sign up immediately, they wouldn't be promoted until two weeks later.--The General 21:18, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I think that the discussion period is necessary. It's very long, yeah, but we do need to receive community input to this whole concern. I do not want the Moderation team to be some hidden cabal, promoting who they so choose (and yes, I appreciate the irony, considering recent history). We are starting to get a steady trickle of people through the page, and we're getting an average of one new mod per week (which isn't that bad, as promotions go).
I could see the argument for dropping waiting times across the wiki to 1 week, but I would prefer an appreciable community consultation period. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 06:16, 21 April 2006 (BST)

What if there is a revision giving clear right-to-promote power to certain Mods? IE: Whoever could handle the decision and is trusted. Long-standing Mods, perhaps. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 23:31, 7 April 2006 (BST)

It seems to be working too well. We are having a huge influx of people who, to be honest, are completely unsuited to modship.--The General W! Mod 10:55, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Cyberbob240

So far, everyone's raised perfectly reasonable criticism. For those who didn't believe me the first time, let me reiterate: I am truly sorry for the problems I've caused, and have made huge modifications to my behaviour - both future and current - on the wiki. --Cyberbob240CDF | Arb 10:18, 21 April 2006 (BST)


  • Against Complete tool. After I sent a polite, constructive message I just got abuse back. Don D Crummitt 16:45, 15 May 2006 (BST)
    • Abuse? "No." doesn't constitute abuse. And if you're referring to the TWO new talk pages you created in a completely wrong location, well, you had it coming. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 16:48, 15 May 2006 (BST)
    • This user (Crummitt) has since vandalised Bob's user page. –Xoid S•T•FU! 17:30, 15 May 2006 (BST)
      • Yes and quite a few times over might I add. I also called him a cunt for, well, the simple reason that he is. Good day sirs. Don D Crummitt 18:40, 15 May 2006 (BST)
        • Protocol or no, I don't think a vandalising dipshit like this one has the right to vote. –Xoid S•T•FU! 18:42, 15 May 2006 (BST)
          • I think that was vandalism too. Not sure what you've got to do with anything Xoid. Don D Crummitt 18:45, 15 May 2006 (BST)
            • Rich. Where the fuck are the moderators when you need 'em. –Xoid S•T•FU! 18:46, 15 May 2006 (BST)
  • Against This is a valid vote. I have received my vandalism warning from Vista, thank you. I don't think Cyberbob should be a moderator because he is rude and not impartial. See link to cyberbobs latest post Cyberbob's Latest Post Don D Crummitt 18:50, 15 May 2006 (BST)
    • Note - Struck out "evidence". This isn't a court. This is just about opinion. You don't need to back up your opinion. Please, would you just stop already? You've made your point. Everyone knows you dislike me. You don't have to be so irritating about it. Please, just get out of my face. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - U! 15:50, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    • tyfyc. I'm sure it will be weighed accordingly. --Karlsbad 18:53, 15 May 2006 (BST)
    • I disagree; you are currently up for vandal banning based on your behavior towards this user. Your vote is obviously valid. Had you actually been a wiki user for longer than, you know, 5 hours, you might be taken seriously regardless of your vote or history with Cyberbob. But no: you are a n00b tool, and we're going to ignore you.--Jorm 22:41, 15 May 2006 (BST)
      • This isn't a vote. this is merely taking soundings. We make sure that everybody can voice their thoughts about a person in the promotion to moderator. And because it is not a vote, all the comments that are made are weighted against the work and reputation of the user that made them. Don D Crummitt can have his say here, wether or not it will persuede the bureaucrat hinges on how much he takes faith in Don D Crummitt work and reputation over the work and reputation of the people whose thoughts on Cyberbob240 differ. Kevan is perfectly able to able to interprate the value of Don D Crummitt comment for himself.--Vista W! 22:55, 15 May 2006 (BST)
        • Look, whatever you think, if there wasn't such a general hatred geared towards "noobs" (I've been around for a while, but not an experienced Wiki user) on this site, I wouldn't have acted like I did. I asked Cyberbob to expand on his comments about a suggestion, and he just threw it back at me, then got Xoid to join in. Because I created a "talk" page? I wasn't nasty or rude towards him initially. If he'd just contacted me, and told me what I was doing wrong, that would have been cool (as Vista has done today), but instead he was a dick about it. I expect that what he does to everyone who makes "mistakes". Whether or not I get banned (Er, I'll just create a new account thanks) Cyberbob should not be a moderator. Don D Crummitt 23:31, 15 May 2006 (BST)
          • Okay, question; do you think we were all mean to you because you were a n00b or because you were a vandal? And are aware that we perma-ban any vandalous user who is attempting to work-around a temp ban? Yes, CyberBob didn't treat you like you were a shining snowflake of happy fuzzy rainbows, but then you lost all rights to complain about his actions by making your response to them as going on a vandal spree. Doing so proves that you have yet to learn how to conduct yourself appropriately, and therefore your opinion is devalued in the eyes of this wiki because of that. If you had just left it at when CyberBob reported you for editing his userpage rather than his Talk page, a minor non-warning infraction, then we'd all have forgotten it. However you decided to overreact like an absolute douche by whiping pages, and have made your name worth less than Mud on the Street. Congrats on that. --Karlsbad 00:31, 16 May 2006 (BST)
            • Thank you, Karl. Yes, I was harsh, but the comment you were talking about was a simple "No". No malice there. It was when you repeatedly made the same mistake AFTER BEING TOLD ABOUT IT that I got pissed. I've had my say, so I'm officially out of this discussion as of... now. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 08:31, 16 May 2006 (BST)
              • Cyberbob, it was not a simple "No". You said I acted in "blind stupidity", and told me to pretty much get lost for no apparent reason. You were an arsehole IMMEDIATELY after I made the first mistake, not after several. The fact that you then got Xoid to join in BEFORE I vandalised your page speaks volumes. Regardless of how I acted, you do not have any tolerance and an obvious disdain for those who are inexperienced at using the wiki. These are not qualities that a moderator should have. Okay, I know it was wrong to vandalise the wiki - it's someones work, their creativity, I am not a Philistine. But obviously Cyberbob needs to learn how to treat people with a bit more dignity. It's pretty fucking embarrassing to be told you're stupid, just when you don't know how to do something, and then gets their friend to join in laughing at you. Not good. Don D Crummitt 09:47, 16 May 2006 (BST)
                • *sighs* I see you still have a beef with me. Please take it to my talk page, in the interest of minimising clutter on this page. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 09:50, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  • Comment The actions of a mod? I think not. I've been willing to drop this feud. But now I'm starting to feel harrassed. I don't want to seem petty (not in public anyway) and I'm not trying to garner favour with anyone. I don't puport to be anyone's friend or enemy on this wiki, but I fee; Cyberbob's latest post is an attack, plain and simple. Cyberbob's Latest Post -- Don D Crummitt 15:31, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    • Struck out unrelated message. Don, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. People don't appreciate private arguments cluttering up public pages. Take it to either of our talk pages. (NOTE: I probably won't reply) This page is not for carrying on drama. You get one post. That is your vote. If you have a public grievance to air, put it on your user page. That is all. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - U! 15:34, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  • Granted. I have updated my original post with link to latest evidence of Cyberbob's insufficiency. Don D Crummitt 15:43, 16 May 2006 (BST)
Not so fast, cowboy. I forgot to mention (I do that sometimes) that this page isn't about "gathering evidence" against someone you don't like. Stop being so irritating and get out of my hair, please. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - U! 15:49, 16 May 2006 (BST)
I love you Bob. Oh shit, did I write that out loud? Don D Crummitt 16:43, 16 May 2006 (BST)

2 Points

  1. Just wondering how many people would go for me being a mod (prolly none).
  2. We should probably suspend moderation promotions for now.

AllStarZ 04:05, 3 May 2006 (BST)

For number two, I think we should keep promoting anyone who gets through the process - I would be perfectly happy if every user eventually gained sysop status. I don't think that we can reach the point where we have too many moderators, considering that the community continues to grow, and that some Mods will continue to slow their operations on the wiki. With that said, I think it may be about time to remove the message off the Main Page. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 04:28, 3 May 2006 (BST)
1. Didn't you just come back from like, a three month hiatus? I'm all for letting mods do however little they want, but you might wanna stick around a bit.
2. Wikis can never have too many mods. --Zaruthustra-Mod 04:30, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Limit for Vouchers

After having a batch of people staying up on the Requests for Moderatorship still requiring vouches for a week or two, we've got another hopeless canidate. Problem is all long as the candidate himself doesn't retract his bid his bid can linger on undecidedly for ever. To aviod this I propose removing the unnessersary catorgary. It doesn't nothing to remove the chaff of the page, And I don't feel it has any use at all.--Vista W! 23:55, 20 May 2006 (BST)

Well I think we should keep that section because it is easier to find out whos in with a chance at becoming a moderator and who is working at it. Otherwise you'll end up with entrys which get ignored and then archived. Mabey we could have a one month rule or something? or mabey just if the team of moderators decided that an application has been up for too long then it may be removed. Well just my thoughts... - Jedaz 15:13, 22 May 2006 (BST)
A month is too long. Some will complain that two weeks is too short. Lets just say, "If you can't get at least three vouches within three weeks, your application will be considered to be unsuccessful and archived accordingly." — this doesn't mean that they can only run for three weeks though, it means 5 weeks at most — three for the initial vouches, two for discussion beyond that. I think that this sounds like a fair way for it to go. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:38, 22 May 2006 (BST)
Sounds fair enough. I geuss we'ld need to have a policy vote and all that then if we are going to be able to enforce it. (I'm starting to loath policy votes...) - Jedaz 14:55, 25 May 2006 (BST)
I like how that sounds, I was beginning to worry about that sort of thing myself. – Nubis NWO 15:05, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Template Madness

Redskull.jpg Mod all the Zambahz!
This user thinks that we should stop wasting
time and just make every single zombie
player on Urban Dead a Moderator.

That is all. -- Amazing 03:41, 21 May 2006 (BST)

So, out of all the moderators, I think only three are members of the RRF (Hagnat, Nubis and Grim). Zarathustra hangs out in the channel, but I don't believe he's a member. That's three out of 18, and of the remainder several are avowed enemies of the RRF.
But anyways: the RRF is mind-boggling huge. Statistically speaking, we should have a great deal of representation.--Jorm 03:55, 21 May 2006 (BST)
While i do hang out with the RRF, help in the defense of Barhahvile from the harman invaders, and are now at Crossman Groove PD killing Amazing, Scinfaxi and Co., i must warn everyone that i am first a member of the WCDZ, and then a member of the RRF. Sorry guys, but the conspiracy comes first. --hagnat mod 04:22, 21 May 2006 (BST)
Actually I'm also a member of the RRF with an alt of mine, but hardly active.--Vista W! 11:27, 21 May 2006 (BST)
  • *sniff sniff* WAAAAAHHHHHHH! --Mookiemookie 04:31, 21 May 2006 (BST)
Man. Arbitration-breaking trolling, or just whining? --Punchkin 05:03, 21 May 2006 (BST)
Exactly. This is trolling, Amazing. It will only lure people here to create more drama. Please, refrain from making this kind of comment again in the future. --hagnat mod 05:26, 21 May 2006 (BST)
I meant Amazing creating the template. Or did you mean to put a comma after 'trolling'? --Punchkin 05:40, 21 May 2006 (BST)
The second. --hagnat mod 05:44, 21 May 2006 (BST)
I'll say anything I like as long as it fits in with the guidelines of the Wiki and is a good-faith joke that is in no way offensive... and you'll do nothing about it. -- Amazing 06:51, 26 May 2006 (BST)
HAHAHA, I never thought I would get Amazing to support me as a mod, but now I can count on his vote is I should ever feel like running. YES, my plan is working!--`mudez U! LCD 05:29, 21 May 2006 (BST)
Well, he's been falsely accusing me of being an RRF spy from the beginning...does this mean he wants me to be a mod? OH JOYS! He really does want me to be more important than him! MaulMachine U! 03:55, 27 May 2006 (BST)
Actually, you were a part of Mall Tour with your character "MaulMachine's Return", and that's what I base my statements on. Sorry your lie doesn't hold. -- Amazing 18:28, 27 May 2006 (BST)
It's not their fault that the mature people play zombies. It takes a certain level of awesomeness to recognise that zombies rock and survivors don't. -Craw 11:46, 21 May 2006 (BST)
Errmm perhaps most moderators are really mature and play both sides?--Vista W! 11:47, 21 May 2006 (BST)

I would like to express my wholehearted support for this in a totally serious and unironic manner. With 897 new mods, mod shortage will never be a problem again! --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 20:23, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Don't you mean 897 new mods? 900-3 = 897 (Last time I checked, anyway.) ;-p –Xoid S•T•FU! 02:07, 24 May 2006 (BST)
I guess so, yeah. I haven't checked the RRF's numbers regularly since my RRF char took off to become a PKer, so the last I saw they were at roughly 700. Now editing original comment to make me retroactively smart. God bless the intarwubs. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:41, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Don't be idiotic. It's not trolling in the least, and does not violate any rule, since it mentions no particular user, and is actually sarcastically positive in message.

It's called a joke. You know this, I know this. Stop posturing. -- Amazing 06:49, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Dunno who you're talking to there, 'Zing. You might wanna consider indenting your comment under whoever it is you're replying to. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:55, 26 May 2006 (BST)
He's talking to the conspiratorial Amazing-persecuting geshtalt, of course. What can this template mean other than "this user feels that the promotion system is unfair and some of the RRF moderators should not have been promoted"? If you're being sarcastically positive, aren't you being negative? What? --Punchkin 07:00, 26 May 2006 (BST)
Sarcastically Positive is my way of pointing out it's not a "REMOVE TEH ZAMBAH PLAYERZ OR KIL THEM PLS" template, it's merely a tame as fuck comment that mentions no one specifically, and does not call for any sort of action. It can easily be used by someone who agreed with the text as it can be used by someone who agrees with the sarcastic commentary. -- Amazing 20:50, 26 May 2006 (BST)
It mentions a specific group of players and appears to be a call to stop the current system of unfairly or corruptly promoting them. --Punchkin 03:47, 27 May 2006 (BST)
The RRF could stand for "Really Rad Ferals", but even so the Ridleybank Resistance Front includes many sub-groups as far as I know, so really it's more of a blanket organization at this point. As for the rest - That's your own opinion, and isn't actually stated in the Template in any way. Sorry you have this misconception. -- Amazing 18:28, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Wait, what? – Nubis NWO 20:52, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Baka Baka Chibi Chibi. -- Amazing 20:57, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Jedaz Promotion

Hmm... yeah I was wondering, how long it would take. Are we going to wait the full 2 weeks again before saying it's ready for processing or should we let Kevan know that a few more users have commented. I'm thinking that I should wait the full 2 weeks just because I don't want to bug Kevan. But I'm just wondering what other peoples thoughts are... (yes I'm getting a little impatient now) - Jedaz 11:54, 2 June 2006 (BST)

No, you can't skip the wait. It's there so every user (if they so wish) have the opportunity to air their opinions of you. And impatience is not a very desirable trait, Jedaz. Keep it under check. You don't have a separate set of rules from everyone else. You're thinking of waiting the full 2 weeks? *cough*arrogance*cough* --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 11:57, 2 June 2006 (BST)
He already has waited that long, Cyber. Wating another two weeks on top of that? *cough*you-got-a-chest-infection-or-somthin'*cough* –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:06, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Oh. That'll learn me to check the facts, I guess. Sorry Jedaz. However, you should leave a gentle reminder on Kevan's talk page. I did, and it was a good thing - he said he would've forgotten about the promotions! --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 12:08, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Thats ok Cyberbob, don't worry about it. Any way I'm promoted now so thats good. Thanks to everyone who vouched for me. - Jedaz 12:15, 2 June 2006 (BST)
And Jedaz just got promoted so fast his head is still spinning. –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:16, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Yeah tell me about it. I didn't expect it to happen so soon after posting this. But obviously Kevan was just about to get around to it before I posted this section. - Jedaz 12:19, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Matt tally

What kind of asshole tallys his own mod votes? Don't you think the bureaucrats can count?Jjames 07:20, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Maybe he's just being kind and saving us the effort? It's always a possibility. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:22, 15 September 2006 (BST)
Matt is a great guy. Maybe you are just being a cunt, Jjames. At least Matt got some serious vouches. The only reason people vouched for you was to piss off Amazing. Oh, and Bob tallied his votes for Bureaucrat. Go shove it.--Gage 07:44, 15 September 2006 (BST)
Why don't you kiss Matt on the mouth if you love him so much? What kind of closet case calls another man a cunt anyway? The kind that thinks Data is cool? If bob tallied them, then why is Matt's sig on them? Not that you care about that. You're just pissed that I got your candy butt kicked out of ASS. You pathetic little crybaby. Snot running down your nose. You smell like shit, boy. Lose some weight.Jjames 16:23, 15 September 2006 (BST)
Er...I think Gage was referring to Bob's Bureaucrat bid - not this one. Cyberbob  Talk  16:28, 15 September 2006 (BST)
I'll concede that point, but my position on Matt being a pushy douche remanins. Also, Gage is clearly a mewlimg little sissy who's mother made him dress like a girl until he was eight.Jjames 16:51, 15 September 2006 (BST)
No arguments here about Matthew. Cyberbob  Talk  16:56, 15 September 2006 (BST)
Hurr, link.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 16:36, 15 September 2006 (BST)
Swfjmq.jpg Oh Snap!
Someone just got served!

--CaptainM 07:58, 15 September 2006 (BST)


Ahhh Now that this is in an appropriate spot... Although I have issues with Matt and his bid, at least any negative behaivor that can be attributed to him is a lack of couture (not culture, thats different) whereas your behavior is just assinine jj. And the fact that you so quickly devolve into gutter euphamisms is just one more example of why you are not now, nor likely ever to be a MOD on this wiki. Conndrakamod T CFT 18:19, 15 September 2006 (BST)
Jjames was the worst candidate since Amazing for mod. And at least Amazing had done something for the wiki...--Gage 18:44, 15 September 2006 (BST)
Yeah when Amazing broke wiki rules regularly and tried to avaid bans it sure was something. All kidding aside, I think you've always been unfairly biased against me not to mention rude. I think you blame me for your getting kicked from ASS and you aren't big enough to admit it.Jjames 05:20, 17 September 2006 (BST)
I have never, in all my life, seen a person abandon their "reputation of civility" so quickly or absolutely. --Karlsbad 21:44, 15 September 2006 (BST)
It was a joke. Lighten up. You act as if anyone on this board is civil. why can't we enjoy a good mean spirited joke now and again?Jjames 05:20, 17 September 2006 (BST)

What is all this ranting about me? Ahh, I see... just because I made a Tally? This college teacher needs a young student (you say wich sex) and some privacity, fast! --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 06:06, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Nah, just fucking with you. I thought you took the whole mod canidacy thing a little too seriously and figured I could poke fun of myself as well. I played the bitter poster who failed to gain approval and lashed out showing his true colors. I actually am a civil guy, I just have a kooky sense of humor.Jjames 05:20, 17 September 2006 (BST)

Ron Burgundy

  • Pardon me, but thats a really stupid way to go about deciding if you are going to vouch for someone. Your opinion, for or against, should be based on your opinion of the persons merit and conduct on the wiki, not who nominates him/her. You are basing your vouch on something that is completely irrelevant, especially considering the fact that many good moderators of this wiki, past and present, nominated themselves for the position of responsibility out of a desire to serve the community, myself among them. --Grim s-Mod U! 01:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    On the other hand, there is something to be said for moderators who are given the call to serve by the public trust, rather than those who step forth to be recognized. One is based on pure respect, the other is always a little clouded by suspicions of ambition and voter calculation. I for one would rather see moderators not be allowed to self-nominate, but that doesn't seem to be the culture here.--The Envoy 01:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    And your vote was full of slander with no factual basis. What evidence do you have that he is "an irresponsible twit" --Dickholeguy 01:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    Slander? My what big and important sounding words you have. Is it not obvious? Ron has shown 0 responsibility for taking care of the wiki, and is thus unfit for a position of such responsibility as a moderator, hence irresponsible, and the guy is a moron, hence the twit. Now, if you put them together, you get "irresponsible twit". How about nest time you nominate someone, you make sure that they meet the required criteria, specifically: "Prior interest in maintaining the community. We define this as clear evidence that the candidate is already performing maintenance tasks and taking leadership roles on the wiki." --Grim s-Mod U! 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    I still ask, what has he done, specifically, to bring you to the conclusion that he is an "Irresponsible Twit" He hasn't been involved in any drama, Has been quite active in community discussions, and hasn't had a bad thing to say about anyone in this community. So, if you can find any specific instance of him being an "irresponsible twit," I will stand corrected --Dickholeguy 02:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    After several members of the Channel 4 News Team were caught zerging with multiple accounts, Ron's way of 'dealing with it' was to say, "oh, well, it's okay, and they won't be doing it again." The offenders were not kicked from the group; nothing. There you go! Instance supplied.--Jorm 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    Your example breaks down in two categories, first, the C4NT is loosely co-ordinated, and he doesn't have any real control over his members (after all, cody6 is a c4nter and he's a known pker) I don't think you can hold the actions of Ron's group against Him, and 2, that doesn't reflect anything about his commitment to the wiki. On a side note when was this instance? I hadn't heard about this one, and I'm not denying that it may or may not have happened, but give me more details--Dickholeguy 03:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    Funny thing. The RRF was three or four times the size of C4NT, was "loosely organized" and still had an insanely hard line stance on multi-accounts and zerging. So your comment doesn't wash. If you want someone who thinks that cheating is "okay sometimes" then by all means, continue to support him. But be aware that who you support reflects upon you. --Jorm 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    A) when did he do this, if you can give me an instance I can have a better idea of what your talking about, for all I know you could be making this up, I need details. B) I don't think Ron's ever said "cheating is okay" or anything like it.--Dickholeguy 03:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    Why is an admission that errors were made by zealous group members and a promise that those errors won't be made again insufficient action? As far as Ron's "do nothing", I've seen him engage in more reasonable discussion than a lot of mods who prefer to build no power policies rather than, you know, moderate through reasoned discourse. Most of the policies on this board would be unnecessary if we had more mods like Ron who "stayed classy" -- that is, resolve issues through discussion rather than using the policy forum to develop new weapons to use on the wiki-users. While in real life I like my so-called "activist judges", here I'm concerned with moderators' tendency to turn this wiki into fiefdoms rather than make any real effort to maintain good conduct through disucssion. In short, R.B.'s a clear, fair thinker, and a good natured guy. Those attributes are far more desirable in a moderator than the personality traits that tend to correspond who interact with color-coding and margin justifications better than users, and folks who try to enforce some sort of objective reality NPOV principle in a fictive environment largely understood through subjective game impressions. While janitorial tasks are necessary, we need actual fair minded moderators moreso. By the way, anyone know if Ron actually wants this job?--The Envoy 04:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    He hasn't said a word so far. My point about him not being active enough is proven right there.--Gage 04:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    The incident being referred to took place at the end of May and Ron's response to community can be found in the wayback machine. I think his position was an admirable one very indicative of our vandal banning process. It is not administered as a punishment but rather used to steer you in the right direction without running you off. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 04:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    He may be on vacation since it's still Thanksgiving week here in the States. And a lot of folks take the entire week off to travel to family. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 04:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    He probably is, He's at Boston University and I'll bet he's with his family --Dickholeguy 04:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps this conversation should be moved to the talk page? It's getting to be fairly long. -- ∀lan Watson T·RPM 04:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    There is a difference between being fair and being nice. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. You want evidence of where someone with a neutral point of view is better than a nice person? Take Caiger's recent fall. Until someone stepped in and rapped both sides over the knuckles and told them to knock it off, it was only going to get worse. Same thing with the Giddings Siege. Of course, you say that this game is all subjective, but then again, isn't everything? Because, despite people on wikipedia being able to make NPOV articles on some truly contentious issues, it's impossible for someone to state the facts in a relatively neutral tone of voice about a two-bit MMORPG. …right.
    Ron is neither fair, nor clear in his thinking. His utterly illogical reasoning behind his vote on redefinition of the spam vote is proof of that, as is his reaction to the zerging. It is that exact same "we'll let Kevan deal with it" mentality that is why the game is rife with cheaters; yeah sure, why not turn a blind to other's cheating — it's not like you have ethical standards to uphold by doing something about it. –Xoid M•T•FU! 09:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    The distinction isn't between fair and nice, what I was advocating was reasonableness. And yes, wikipedia standards aren't exactly reasonable as the end all and be all model for this wiki (again, as if wikipedia and uncylopedia are the end all and be all of wiki usage). Look what happens to wiki pages that become informed by current events. Basically UDwiki IS a current event, or more accurately a current fiction from all perspectives except maybe Kevans. The real data you need to maintain true NPOV by wikipedian standards just aren't available to us, see the policy discussion about "suburb and group purity". So what you need, rather than truthsquadding npov minimalism, are good voices who can see the big picture to try to maintain a coherent narrative, editors, not fact checkers since the facts more often than not are impossible to check in this environment (which is very different from a system of documentation based upon an entire real world of publications and information of the sort that wikipedia is predicated upon). This takes rhetorical skill and a sesne of balanced narrative, which R.B. has scads of.
    While I can't find the great spam travesty, I did read over Ron's response to the minor zerging incident within his ranks and find his response entirely reasonable and just. What should he have done otherwise besides agree with Kevan's actions when the perpetrators were caught? How is his apology turning a blind eye to cheating? You make it sound like mods are also game referees rather than maintainers of a derivative product of the game.--The Envoy 18:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me give my honest opinion...despite my vouch, If I thought Ron would have honestly made a good Mod, I'd have put him up myself. I honestly don't beleive he'd want the position to begin with since he enjoys his current status and flavor he produces. I'll vouch for anyone who I think has the potential to be a good mod, but I would only nominate someone who I had honest to goodness faith in their skills, ability, and judgement. So far there has only been one person who I have thought that highly of. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 10:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Promotions/Archive1&oldid=1116385"