UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions/Archive3

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Guidelines

Should the guidelines for becoming a candidate be raised? There is a remarkable number of people (myself included) that put up a bid not long after we reached the 500 edit mark. Even by that many edits,I wouldn't think that many people would have a great grasp of the administration proceedures. I don't know anyone who has become a SysOp with at least 800 edits. It would cut down the number of rejected candidates we would have to cycle through. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 04:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of agreeing with you, unless a user can cite past admin positions on other wikis, while providing proof of course. If they can, then I think the reqs. should be a bit lower than a normal user.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You're thinking especially of yourself, of course.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  04:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, if I ever run, I'm not citing past works. I'd rather be promoted based solely on my work here.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose raising it to 2000. That number of edits shows dedication to the wiki over a long period of time. The point is for users to be familiar with the place and understand the community, not to just be young freshly arrived spamaholics. And i fuckin hate edit conflicts --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
2K seems a bit high. I was personally thinking around 1.5K.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
2000 isnt all that high. I actually think 3000 would be more approriate. That way you get users who arent just regular contributors, but people who actually contribute to the wiki (They have to to get that many edits) --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd be more partial to 1.5k too. Not many people stay around for 2k, but then again that proves what Grim is saying. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 04:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like Wikipedia recommends at least 2000 (it was lower in the past). Meh, 1.5k or 2k sounds like a good number. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well in the past year this wiki has grown, so I think the requirements should also grow in accordance. 2k seems fine to me then. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 04:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait, I've got it, 1750! Perfect middle number! Not counting welcome newbie spammage of course...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Lol, thing is nice, rounded 500 numbers are easy to count becuase of the way the contribs is set up. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 04:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
My problem is that I have all my lists (recent changes, logs, everything) set up in 750 increments. :D-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
1.5K sounds s'alright. Is 2 months long enough? -- boxy talk • i 05:00 3 January 2008 (BST)
Twee fitty. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
2000, 6 months. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not set in stone on 6, but at least 4.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Grim - 2k, 6 months. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 05:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thinking of the burnout rate of the average user here, 6 months does seem like a good place.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
6 here too. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And 2k edits. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


An often paraphrased comment about adminship is the following, said by Jimbo Wales in February 2003, referring to administrators as sysops:

[[User:Wikipedia:Jimmy Wales|Wikipedia:Jimmy Wales]] said:
I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

Something for candidates and current sysops to maybe keep in mind :) --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 05:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Are you guys trying to discourage new blood? I have been active for 2 years and don't think I have that many edits. I can't even use templates so there is no way i would want to stand anyway but 2000 seems waay too steep! As for the suggestion below that you would need 5 people with 500+ edits to vouch for you!!! Why not just come straight out with it and make a template to say "we don't take kindly to strangers in these parts" or "get awf my WIKI" and be done? --Honestmistake 12:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have something to add, head over to this talk page and give your input into the discussion. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 12:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Sysop List

With the noted exceptions, all of the following are currently active and have made edits within the last month. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. A Helpful Little Gnome ‎
  2. Boxy ‎Bureaucrat
  3. Conndraka ‎
  4. Daranz ‎
  5. Dux Ducis ‎
  6. Grim s
    ‎
  7. Hagnat
    ‎
  8. Karek ‎
  9. Karlsbad ‎(????)
  10. Kevan ‎Bureaucrat
  11. Krazy Monkey ‎
  12. LeakyBocks ‎(Never Truly Active)
  13. Mobius187 ‎
  14. Nubis ‎
  15. Swiers ‎
  16. Thari ‎
  17. The General ‎
  18. Urbandead ‎(Root Account)Bureaucrat
  19. Vantar ‎Bureaucrat
  20. Vista ‎(No Internet Access)
  21. Zaruthustra ‎(Real Life Schedule Conflicts)
  22. Zombie slay3r ‎

Other

Are there any other guidelines that should be tweaked/raised then? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 04:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Might this be something to base off of? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And this is a smaller version of said page.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
So small it doesn't exsist. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Thar, fixed.
It worked fine for me.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of 'observing cocensus'. Plus a 'need' for sysops should factor into more of the promotions. We aren't exactly short on active ones at the moment. However, that can change in the future. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think a need for more should matter too much, as you never know who's going to be active when. The quantity is sometimes a good thing.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good point. I think the 'need' is more for beauracrats than sysops. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 05:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another useful idea: the process should be more of a question/answer process. Have a look at a few of the recent successful promotions - [1] [2] [3] [4]. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, general intro/comments, than official questions that have to be answered than optional questions added by the users and finally the "votes"? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeppers. The current process is, and always has been on the UDWiki a little haphazard. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 05:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a great idea isn't it? A bit more complicated, but I think it'd be an overall better way.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I liked about being put up for a promo there. People got to see more into you than what they would from just telling about your self. I'm all for it.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to use my swanky new Projects Page! --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 05:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hurry it up. I want to be the first person to be promoted under the (soon to be) new guidelines. :D -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and help add some content to the page, I'd like it to be a collaborative effort. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 05:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
M'kay then.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Minimum 3 Vouches - 500 edits enough?

Indication of trust in the candidate (min 3 users (pref users with 200 edits & one SysOp) - shouldn't this be looked at as well? What do you guys think about increasing the minimum number of edits of the 3 users to 1,000? Or maybe just have minimum 2 sysops in the 3, with the other vouch from a user with more than 1,000 edits? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 06:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was actually thinking more along the lines of 4 users with at least 500, and one of those four being an active sysop that has been a SysOp for at least three months. What does everyone else think?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 06:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Should I up the ante with 5 users and 500 edits? That way a lot of promotions would be aborted before they waste the community's time. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 06:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
As long as one of the users is a long standing SysOp (they don't have to be ancient like Grim though), it works for me.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 06:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You're kidding right? Sysops shouldn't have the final say over who gets in or not, it's not a club. Crat's have the power, but encouraging them to make their decision before actually considering it is just dumb.--Karekmaps?! 06:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The SysOps wouldn't have final say. It'd just be confirming that the candidate is a trusted user. But now that I think about it, it'd be a bit much.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 06:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Never said that SysOps have the final say. Besides, the current guidelines state that one of the three has to be a SysOp. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 06:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If all 5 of the active sysops(cause most of the time we're lucky to even have 5) decide they don't like the user but the crats think they deserve the promotion you are giving sysops the final say. You're giving sysops more power for no reason beyond them limiting who can get more power. And the current guidelines suck, that's why you're proposing rewrites.--Karekmaps?! 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I'm putting that part down as preferably one user being a SysOp. I think it'd be okay, as we'd have more users that are trusted vouching for a candidate anyway.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 06:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

friends

with the recent bid by thekooks, I have noticed a disturbing trend. besides the fact that most of the vouch votes are made by users with less then 200 edits, it appears most of them are friends with thekooks. now are there and rules againest this? could i get 100 of my buddys and get them vote vouch? what kind of protection is there againest this form of abuse?--'BPTmz 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but its not a vote is it? I too worked out pretty quickly the 'popularity issue' of many of these votes. I dont think there is a lot to worry about in this cae, the issue of page deletion, the lack of edits should derail such an appointment.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, it is important to understand that this isn't a vote. All the Vouch does is show support for that user, followed by any comments. Even if the majority of the community feels that the user would be a good sysop, they maybe rejected by the Burecrat - which has happened, even recently. This contains all of the information about how people apply for, and get the position of Sysop on the Wiki. --Ryiis 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
With edits, does it mean any edits? Using me as an example, I reckon ive made 500+, but do they need to be specific pages?--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. Generally, as long as your edits were constructive and added to discussion or pages on the wiki then they are good edits. Some people argue that spamming the Welcome Newbie template is a way to garner the needed 500+ edits, and is usually frowned upon. If you helped to reduce the amount of uncategorized images, well then you are helping the wiki, though you really are not adding to the content of the wiki either. It's a bit of a double edged blade, and is definately subjective. --Ryiis 19:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll bear that in mind if i ever apply, Im glad I did all those location blocks in north vinetwon now....--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Also just noticed your hint about uncatorgarised images. Noticed you were doing that, Ive been good and trawled the 6000+ and catergorised all my ones.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Everything is meatpuppeted these days. Even the shark from jaws.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, "voting" in a new sysop is actualy quite important, after all you wouldn't want to find out the person that you've just promoted to a position of power is an incompetant arse would you? Thank god that's never happened in the real world, huh? Anyway, because it's important most users tend to put aside their various bickering and personal disagreements to have a sensible and rational discussion, after which the "Right" descision is usualy reached, for a given degree of right. It actualy seems to work relitively well. And anyway, if some complete idiot is promoted, misconduct cases can always be used if they do something specatcularly dumb.--SeventythreeTalk 21:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Nalikill for sysop?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Me for mod? :D -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No, wait, 73 for mod? Zinker? No, wait, never mind. I don't want to get banned within 15 minutes of his promotion...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyone for sysop! No, seriously, I do get why people are worried about this sort of thing, but in all seriousness it seems to pan out pretty well in the end.--SeventythreeTalk 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Especially considering the 'crats aren't dumb enough to fall for a bunch of ,eat-puppety vouches.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Precicely. The process is grueling and rigourous enought for a normal user who isn't relying on the backup of a bunch of mates. No-one gets to be sysop through getting all their mates to vote for them.--SeventythreeTalk 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

hmm just read this little line "the Bureaucrat will review the community discussion and make a decision based upon it", so i guess that anwsers my question. even if someone got 100 friend vouches the bureaucrat could still say no.--'BPTmz 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that is what is meant when the page says "This is not a vote. It is instead merely a request for comments from the wiki community" - Vantar 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fame

On the main page it says "blah blah blah 2 persons up for sysops". Why not add their names/handles? Surely that would get more people involved.I mean surely there name means something? You recognise the name you're more likely to reply, letting others know about their horrible trolling/general helpfulness/both--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My name is a tad long.... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A fair point. but im sure the page could handle it. I mean, wiki awareness is important, otherwise the only people who look at it are a) people who are sysops anyway. b)people that the applicant tells. Surely it should be open to the abuse of all?--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Because it's not a popularity contest. If they are coming to vote because of someones name or applying to be Sysop to get their name out there they shouldn't be here in the first place. I r serious editor and this r serious section.--Karekmaps?! 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my tone, my point is serious. Surely the idea is to get as many individuals involved in the debating of promotions as possible? Otherwise whats the point in having a vouch/against system? And how can supporting someone make it a contest? Its not as if the average wikier on the street gets to make the overall decision.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone does debate. It's not how many vouches you get, but the reasons why people in the community have vouched you. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, I just feel it would be a way of drawing more people into the debate.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo?

The page says "System Operators and Bureaucrats cannot assign promotions unless the request has gone through this page.". Since System Operators can't promote user period should the line be "Bureaucrats cannot assign promotions unless..." instead ? - Vantar 02:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yar, I don't know. It may look like Sysops can assign promotions regardless if it goes through this page or not. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
But Sysops can't, so the line is redundant. I believe it would be fine to remove the "System Operators and" part. --User:Axe27/Sig 06:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Promotions policy is currently being discussed and revised, go ahead and jump in or leave a message on my talk page. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Frequently Asked Questions

  • What is the difference between bureaucrat and sysop?
A Sysop is a User who can delete and restore pages, protect pages, rollback changes, warn and ban Users, as well as use the checkuser function, among other things. A bureaucrat can make other Users into Sysops, and also gets all Sysop abilities.

User:Axe Hack

It's a pity I really don't mean it. Seriously, a whooping 98% of my friends don't bother with grammar or spelling on the Internet. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:57, 18 April 2008 (BST)

Moved from the promotion bid

[..]
My client will now take to the stand to answer any questions that his opponents may have, but my part in the proceedings is now over. I rest my case. -- Cheese 23:56, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I am baffled by this, and I shall accept. And am I really that old? Wow... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:01, 10 April 2008 (BST)
I beat you by a few months. :P My first edit was 1st April 2006. -- Cheese 00:03, 10 April 2008 (BST)
Is that an April Fools joke? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:04, 10 April 2008 (BST)
No. :P It was either the 1st or the 3rd. I forget which. -- Cheese 00:06, 10 April 2008 (BST)
OK...Time for me to dump some unprotected closed suggestions on the protection page that you sysops missed. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:08, 10 April 2008 (BST)
  • Against - Quality over quantity of edits; user spends more time chatting and doesn't seem to grasp what the rules are/entail that well. --Riseabove 04:30, 12 April 2008 (BST)
    I'd like to go ahead and add that having a list of users that he doesn't want to hear from on the talk page is indicative of low maturity. Whatever my differences with some of the opinions of current sysops they widely seem to be willing to listen to reasonable criticism from anyone even if it doesn't change their mind. Anyone who preemptively tunes other wiki users out in this fashion is clearly not a good candidate for moderating the community, same reason I voted against Akule. --Riseabove 01:54, 19 April 2008 (BST)
    What? I can't ban users from my own talk page? I don't see any rules about that. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 02:00, 19 April 2008 (BST)
    Go ahead and do so, I just think it makes you a less desirable candidate for sysop which is what the discussion is about here. --Riseabove 02:21, 19 April 2008 (BST)
  • I'm not sure you'll get through on this round, but I'd like to say that I don't have anything againgst you being a sysop, quite the opposite actualy, I think you've eisily got the potential to make a good sysop. Your contributions to policy discussions and other such areas like arbitration might allow us all to get a better picture as to how you'd behave as a sysop other than that, I gots nothin to add......--SeventythreeTalk 23:06, 13 April 2008 (BST)
    So what is this? An Abstain or what? And of course, not many people are willing to pick me for arbitrator. I'm guessing they don't care about someone who took Law and is currently taking Mock Trial... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 19:55, 15 April 2008 (BST)
    It's a vouch mate..... I figured after the first 3 vouches it was more of a discussion, but yeah, it's a vouch.--SeventythreeTalk 21:41, 15 April 2008 (BST)
    I am graduating in computer sciences and use linux, yet i dont even know how to start a kernel recompiling. You studying a broad field of science doesnt make you the right one to exercise an specific field of that science. You studying real world law doesnt make you automatically fit to exercise udwiki law --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:06, 15 April 2008 (BST)
    Well...It's still experience. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:10, 15 April 2008 (BST)
  • Against - He likes to repeatedly make baseless vandal reports, and he STILL hasn't talked to me as recommended by Hagnat so I could laugh in his e-face. --Kid sinister 07:54, 17 April 2008 (BST)
    You can't blame me for stuff that I think is vandalism. Besides, some vandal reports I made, the SysOps found it vandalism. And some of them they didn't find it was vandalism. Therefore, you win some, you lose some. That's just a way of life. By the way, if Hagnat recommends you to jump off the Empire State Building in New York City, would you do it? Because it seems to me you would do what Hagnat recommended you to do: laugh in my face. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:05, 17 April 2008 (BST)
    Not so much, it's kinda a matter of judgement reporting them in the first place, if you don't know what is and isn't vandalism before you have the power to ban people what good can come of you trying to learn it after.--Karekmaps?! 23:10, 17 April 2008 (BST)
    Well, if you know me, I usually stay off A/VB, unless I absolutely think it is vandalism that needs reporting. I mean, seriously. You hardly ever see me reporting vandals except for like what? Once or twice every few months? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:15, 17 April 2008 (BST)
    Did you just admit that what the rules are and what you think are two different things? Also, your analogy makes no fucking sense. Why would I laugh in your face and not Hagnat's? And you made three wrong reports in a single day, failing both the number and frequency you cited. Do you even process this bullshit in your head before you click the "Save page" button? --Kid sinister 07:54, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Okay. Let's go back to the total number of reports I had ever made. That would probably amount to less than 20. 3 reports not vandalism? Who cares? I've said it once, and I'll say it again. You win some, you lose some. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 19:53, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Since you brought it up, I totaled up all of your vandal reports in the archives, some 14 in total. While you were correct that it was less than 20, of those 14 reports, 9 were ruled as "Not Vandalism". According to my calculations, you "lose" 64.3% of the time. While gathering this data, I also found this, a warning for you from Grim s to stop "spamming A/VB with crap." --Kid sinister 21:28, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    That was not an official warning. That was a soft warning. And I got it for not using the talk page on some report that was turning more and more into a conversation. By the way, I believe I made a tad more than 14 reports. But they've all gone missing since those reports were from the old days were A/VB wasn't archived. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:30, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    You say it was a "conversation", yet you were the only person to get warned... strange...
    Also, let's say that all of your earlier unarchived reports were sterling examples of wiki postitude. Please explain your rampant failure since. Kid sinister 21:39, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    OK. Grim has already said to use the talk page that time, but I continued on, therefore earning a soft warning for that crap. And the unarchived reports? You may want to go to through A/VB's history from like 2006 onward and see for yourself. Unless those were before the days when Captain Morgan (was it him? I don't remember...) accidentally deleted A/VB and slowly worked to restore it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:43, 18 April 2008 (BST)
  • Vouch - My, all this sudden negativity! Has Axe Hack been outed as a peodophile or something? I'm sure he's a jolly nice fellow. --Sloping Flange 18:40, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    From the looks of it a lot of the voters seem to have only been created very recently, with the vote here being one of their very few, or only edits. It looks like someone or a group of people are out to damage the promotion bid, though I find it kinda hard to beleive anyone would be that... well pathetic realy. Apart from anything else it realy won't make a difference. the only real vouch votes that are ever counted are the three form long-time users needed to advance the bid to discussion. The rest is just community discussion and a chance to input your veiws. Htat's all any of the beurocrats are going to be concentrating on.--SeventythreeTalk 19:00, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Great! A mod admitting that the system is just for show and that the community really fucking doesn't matter because you will just do whatever the fuck you all want to anyway. I guess you were voted in by members of the wiki that each had a million wonderful edits and hand coded the wiki from the ground up? With mods like you this wiki doesn't need any more idiots in power, 69. I think people are starting to realize that the "good Old Boy" network of promotions needs to end.--DCC 20:32, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    You seem to be a bit confused to be honest, and not jsut about what my signiture is. We're realy not talking about sysops as wiki rulers, or mods, because we're not. We're sysops. We have to go through a whole bunch of procedure and stuff when we delete, move stuff or ban people. In the past a few sysops may have acted like moderators but to be honest we're nothing more than trusted users (I.E, weve been around for a while, know whats going on and other people who have also been around for a while have vouched for the fact we can be trusted with the limited power). You seem to be confusing what we have with actual power.... It's realy not. Beurocrats are voted in by the whole community as trusted to decide, amongst other things who to trust with being a sysop. If you feel that sysop "powers" (I.e as long as it's definately vandalism, a bad page or a page in the wrong page i can Ban/delete/move it, though I will be accountable to the wiki as a whole if I fuck up) are that important I suggest you run for promotion. As for the old boy network, this isn't some sort of nepotistic bid for a job in daddy's bank it's a user asking wether they can help out the wiki a bit more by doing some of the more tedious, yet needed sysop jobs that the wiki could just not trust every user with. Anyway, if you have anything else you are a bit confused by, don't hesitate to ask! We're helpful like that. --SeventythreeTalk 00:58, 19 April 2008 (BST)
    Wise words, sir. Although, one does like to think that even though my contributions rarley wander into discussion, my vote does still count for something. It does seem, though, The Dead will get us all in time. Sloping Flange 19:19, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    I don't know wheter it's the dead or not to be honest, from what I've seen of them it seems to only be a handful of them that act like dicks all the time, and don't forget we had plenty of idiots on the wiki before they turned up.--SeventythreeTalk 19:41, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Either my Facebook and text messaging propaganda failed or the zombies are turning on the PKers. I'll take the second choice. By the way...anyone want to go through all those recently made accounts used to vote against me? They might be using proxies... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 19:53, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    What's this shit? You campaign on Facebook for votes ? I thought you were running for wiki mod not Facebook prom queen. You are bitching that these AGAINST votes must be proxies or newly created accounts to just vote you down? What kind of a paranoid asshole are you? Maybe people don't think you should be in a position of authority because you are unstable and clueless. Not to mention there is no proof that you can be unbiased.--DCC 20:32, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    I did, but many of my friends thought it was a joke and didn't even bother about it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:34, 18 April 2008 (BST)
  • Vouch --GTAboy91 20:08, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Haha! My propaganda in real life worked! But I'm gonna need to convince a lot more friends if I ever want to cancel out all those againsts from The Dead...Oh yea...Hi Florencio. Anyone want a screenshot as proof? I convinced him via AIM. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:11, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Wait, you said if The Dead all voted against you, it would assure your victory? Are we doing it wrong?--DoohickeyBones 20:20, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    They did vote against me...So I'm just using their plan against them, and bribing friends to vouch for me. You'll be amazed how far money can go. This is just to even the odds, too. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:23, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Congratulations you just made all their "votes" that much more valid. They have a right to express their opinions too and considering they're at the center of some pretty regular drama they're votes a bit more understandable then guys you pressure into voting for you on instant messagers. Thug tactics are despicable.--Karekmaps?! 20:24, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Eh. The Dead started it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:27, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    And that response strengthens my belief that you should not be a SysOp.--Karekmaps?! 20:32, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Awww, how will I deal with the conflict of agreeing with Karek? :) I'm an asshole, but I will give props - I agree with everything he's said here. Axe Hack, you should show some class and stop saying that you take bribes, force people to vote for you, and think people are making accounts just to get you. Maybe next time you will "earn" more VOUCH votes, but right now I really don't think you are a good candidate. And I am happy to see others that agree. Oh and a mod should have a better response than the Dead started it --DCC 20:44, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Actually they did, starting with all that crap up there about vandalism on Kid sinister's vote. And can we take this to the talk page now? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:46, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Oh and this: ...(snip)... Except for all the n00bs to die... --A Vouch For Axe Hack = Free Cookie 23:33, 17 April 2008 (BST) is just a lovely attitude for a mod. --DCC 20:50, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    That was a joke. Do you really think I actually mean it? I mean, most of my friends are n00bs. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:51, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Based on some of the things you have said Yes. I do think you mean that. --DCC 20:53, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Continued on the talk page. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:58, 18 April 2008 (BST)

parachute voters

I hate elitist voting policies that bar new community mebers from having a say but frankly the number of disposable accounts created to vote against Axe is beyond a joke. i don't think anyone cares if a group doesn't like a candidate and block vote against him, however when they draft in folk who do not use the wiki then it is just not on. Would anyone else support a policy to demand a minimum 100 edits to post on promotion bids? Its not a large number (i would be tempted to add a minimum 2 week account age too) but it would be a start.--Honestmistake 23:33, 18 April 2008 (BST)

This is not a vote.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 18 April 2008 (BST)
It realy doesn't matter! Seriously, there's not a vote going on, there are only three votes that "count" in the sysop promotion thing, and that's the three vouches from established users at the start.... Past that its just discussion, and dumb votes like "Against - A m00se once bit my sister. --DoohickeyBones 06:18, 18 April 2008 (BST) " are not ever going to be taken into account. Seriously, you have to make your argument either for or agiangst........--SeventythreeTalk 00:14, 19 April 2008 (BST)
So...I guess I can tell Florencio to call off his friends for vouching for me, huh? Florencio seems to be the only one of my friends who believes me in this whole sysop bid stuff. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:36, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Yeah, there's realy no point. Shame realy, cos if you'd ignred it it would have actualy been a good point for you. I just can't beleive that there's some members of the SA forums willing to waste so much of their time, to be honest, but there you go.--SeventythreeTalk 00:38, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Now if only he would pop online right now...I don't need 20 more vouches from people in real life. And the whole sister part? The only edit she ever did on my account was that stupid gold necklace thing. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:44, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Out of curiosity how much account are votes without an argument taken into? A lot of people who are much more involved parties in the wiki community just voted without an argument, would it be better if I edited my vote to add my justification as I am by no means parachuting here? --Riseabove 00:51, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Probably. --Karekmaps?! 00:58, 19 April 2008 (BST)
And done. Thanks for the advice. --Riseabove 01:07, 19 April 2008 (BST)
It doesn't matter, they have as much right to have a say as the rest of us but, the Dead users actually do use the wiki, I don't know about said accounts in question but, at least they do participate on some level. Friends who don't use the wiki paid off or pressured to vouch however, is a different matter.--Karekmaps?! 00:58, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Those members of the Dead's first edits were voting against me. I don't think that's participating in this wiki. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:02, 19 April 2008 (BST)
These are all of the votes by new accounts. These are the only ones from users where it was their only contribution. Two of the users in the first list even already have had A/VB cases against them. And, This is a means of checking the facts before commenting. --Karekmaps?! 01:31, 19 April 2008 (BST)
4 out of 7, not counting Florencio. That's still a lot. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:36, 19 April 2008 (BST)
4 out of 56, no, it's not.--Karekmaps?! 01:38, 19 April 2008 (BST)
I meant on terms of newbies who's first edits was a "Against" statement against me, not the entire tally. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:50, 19 April 2008 (BST)

To be honest, Axe, your recent bout of whinginess is not doing you any favours. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:16, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Whining, you say? After learning about members from SA going against me because of a freaking vandalism talk on the promo page, what do you think happened? I got pissed, that's what. You know what? Fuck this shit. I'm gone. And I'm not coming back until Monday. I hope your happy. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 02:26, 19 April 2008 (BST)
I'm referring to your attitude in general. If people choose to disbelieve your sister story (this is one example), the mature thing would be to let them rather than constantly bleating about how you're telling the truth. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:33, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Oh what? 'Cause I'm in high school? Oh yes. I know what you're thinking. Kids these days, right? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 02:41, 19 April 2008 (BST)
I'm in high school as well. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:53, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Well. I'm a New Yorker. It's the New Yorker attitude you're talking about, right? Fine, I might smack my hand on a few hoods and yell, "I'm walking here!", but that's New York. What are you gonna do? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 02:57, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Watch your chances of being promoted go down the drain. Why do you ask? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:04, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Pu tit this way, I'm usually very, very friendly. And I'm usually not in the attitude I'm in now unless I am pissed. And you, Bob, you're only building up my anger. Now I'm just not gonna care. I'm taking a three day leave. Goodbye. And yes, this time I'm serious. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 03:26, 19 April 2008 (BST)
If some minor constructive criticism (which is what this discussion started out as) is all it takes to get you pissed, you really don't want to become a sysop anyway. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:31, 19 April 2008 (BST)
I always felt misguided boiling anger was an important trait of a leader. Shine on wiki warlord and hopefully you'll get that hood you've always dreamed of! Peace out bro!--BuckwheatSings 03:33, 19 April 2008 (BST)
This discussion began when I was not as pissed off as I am now. I only became slightly pissed after all those messages on my talk page when I sign on about SA forum members going all out against me. Continuing this for a total of 5 freaking hours has vented my anger to the maximum level. And before I go all crazy on this wiki (which of course you wouldn't want me spamming every freaking page), don't you think it's best that I take a breather? Rather than continue this talk don't you think it would be a better idea for me to leave and continue this another day? Where I am in a rather calm mood? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 03:40, 19 April 2008 (BST) Look at that. I'm so pissed off that my last edit was 666 characters. I find this not a coincidence. Even Satan is freaking annoying me now. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 03:45, 19 April 2008 (BST)
And it never pops in your head that you deserve to be treated that way... Kid sinister 03:53, 19 April 2008 (BST)
How about you just shut up? By the looks of your contribs, I seem to be the third user who you enjoy pissing off/making rude comments of. Who are the other two, you ask? Well, a quick look through your contribs shows you poking fun at Condraka and Marty Banks. And Karek says you guys actually participate on this wiki. From what I see, you participate, alright. By mocking other users. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:04, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Weren't you supposed to leave for 3 days? Get the hell out of here. You just sound silly and it's a pretty big joke you were even considered for promotion.--BuckwheatSings 04:17, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Because some idiots are only making me belate my leave. In particular, the person who won't leave my talk page. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:19, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Nothing is making you stay other than your own lack of self-control. lrn2maturity --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:21, 19 April 2008 (BST)
No. It's because some idiots here are provoking me. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:22, 19 April 2008 (BST)
And you're allowing yourself to be provoked which isn't a good leadership quality. You should have really quit when you were ahead or even when you were just a little bit behind the first time you said you were leaving and if you're reading this instead of leaving you should probably quit now before you make yourself look more immature again. --Riseabove 04:24, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Riseabove got it. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:25, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Who selected this guy anyway? Holy crap you might as well choose The Dead. At least they can form sentences, jesus.--BuckwheatSings 04:29, 19 April 2008 (BST)
From a freaking vandalism report, to a bunch of crap from because of that vandal report, to this. You know what? I decline this nomination. I see you aren't willing to give someone a chance, so why should I even continue with this crap if I'm gonna get negative reactions from pretty much everyone against me? This fucking argument didn't even start until Kid sinister bought up that stupid vandal report crap. Come on! Who cares if the reports were ever found vandalism or not? You don't always get it right! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:34, 19 April 2008 (BST)
I lol'd. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:41, 19 April 2008 (BST)
I'm famous!
Axe Hack, I'm sure the wiki would prefer if you would please update your promotion bid of your new status. It still shows you as accepting your nomination. --Kid sinister 05:26, 19 April 2008 (BST)
I think he said something at the bottom of the request. IT will be removed later today/tomorrow. --Karekmaps?! 05:33, 19 April 2008 (BST)
If you can't take this what would you do when one of the Dead, like say Katthew, gets banned, possibly by you? Trust me, they haven't even started paying attention to you yet.--Karekmaps?! 05:03, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Geez Karek! Threatening to ban Katthew again when she hasn't even said a damn thing about this!? I knew it! :D Actually, on a serious note, I'm a bit concerned about the complaining about people that make their first edit a vote. If that was the only thing they ever edited I could almost see that as being valid, but if it is just their first edit I think you are being ridiculous. Maybe that promotion/suggestion/whatever was what inspired them to sign up. I know I don't like to speak up unless something rubs me the wrong way - usually. (Look at my ban history - the first? one was from getting pissed about a Katthew banning. After that I think I just turned to the troll side, TBH) But now that they have broken their wiki cherry they may continue to contribute. I just don't think you can dismiss them as invalid just because that is their first contribution. They might edit more later on. It wouldn't be fair to dismiss them as "meat puppets" until you see what they do down the line.--DCC 08:05, 19 April 2008 (BST)
Yeah, most peoples first edit is usually a Vote(Suggestions, Policy, whatever) or a Suburb News update from my experience.--Karekmaps?! 13:56, 19 April 2008 (BST)
I'm sure that is dripping with sarcasm, but I'll ask. Oh Mighty Karek, in your wiki wisdom WHAT is the first edit every wiki user makes? --DCC 13:38, 20 April 2008 (BST)
No sarcasm, I was serious. --Karekmaps?! 19:51, 20 April 2008 (BST)
Oh, then I apologize. I'll try to be less sarcastic when talking to you in the future, too. Oh geez, did that week ban change me? --DCC 00:14, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Thanks folks for proving my theory wrong.... almost all of you should be dis-barred from editing as you are (with a few notable exceptions) absolute morons! Sure Axe is probably not the right choice for sysop and christ knows i don't want him going near A/VB but c'mon.... How exactly is he worse than some other sysops? Frankly I don't know why i bother coming here anymore.... the sane folk are gone or drowned out leaving only frothing idiots to take cheap shots at each other! --Honestmistake 03:13, 20 April 2008 (BST)

If you haven't been in a coma for the last oh, 3 months you would realize that we have problems with the other sysops, too. What was this master theory? That one of your little buddies would get promoted because you think he's keen? Maybe the wiki isn't the place for you.--DCC 13:37, 20 April 2008 (BST)
My buddies? I voted against him because I don't want him anymore active on A/VB than he already is. I like Axe, he is a funny guy but I really don't think you could describe him as a "Buddy" of mine. Check my vote if you don't believe me... I changed it to a vouch in an obviously sarcastic fashion which I suspect he found amusing himself! --Honestmistake 14:38, 20 April 2008 (BST)
The answer to your question is in that big block of text above you skipped over reading in order to rant and rave and call us all morons. Also, buy a fucking dictionary and look up "disbarred". --Kid sinister 03:51, 20 April 2008 (BST)
"dis-barred" my fault for commenting at 3am when pissed I guess so i will take that one on the chin, after all i can't expect morons to grasp my meaning if i use long words in a context that pretty much the whole of the (educated) english speaking world would grasp.--Honestmistake 14:38, 20 April 2008 (BST)
ITP we make up our own definitions for words
If your edit was at 3 AM where you live, then I'd bet that you live in England. How is it possible for you to live in the country that invented the damn language, yet you haven't the slightest grasp of it? --Kid sinister 14:56, 20 April 2008 (BST)
"Disbar" means to deprive a barrister the right to practice at the bar. For those who don't understand English Law it basically means to prevent a lawyer practising law.... It's also common usage for preventing anyone from doing something they may wish to do but it is felt they should not be allowed ie: Disbarred from editing this WIKI. I am almost amused by your attempted smear though, almost. --Honestmistake 09:58, 21 April 2008 (BST)
Really? Because I have never seen it used out of the context of lawyers and their practice. Common usage would seem to dictate the use of 'barred' (as in blocked) or 'banned' (as in forbidden). Disbarred would bring the connotation that we were somehow certified in to a selective group before hand, and that is how we posted in the first place. That would certainly go against the wiki concept (or at least this wiki's concept). It is my understanding that this wiki is meant to be used and updated by all members of the UD game community, yes? You suggest that a certain number of UD players should be prohibited from interacting on the wiki because you don't like them? Bit of an elitist attitude, no? (ninjaedit- I swear I checked spelling before I posted. This wiki has it out for me!)--DoohickeyBones 15:17, 21 April 2008 (BST)
See below.... however you are right about me being elitist. When it comes to people being obnoxious just for the sake of it I would rather they did it on their own pages rather than on community ones. If you cannot play fair or nice then go and play else where, its not like the internet isn't full of places for you to do so. --Honestmistake 17:01, 21 April 2008 (BST)
Are you sure Axe Hack wasn't one of your little butt buddies, because you are just as whiny as he is. What happened to "taking it on the chin"? Now you decide to throw out this asinine example of how your use of the wrong word could be right. You should stick to the "It's 3 am and you are a pedantic fuck for pointing that out" instead of this ninja definition crap. You are such a douchebag. Oh and a douchebag is a container of pure water and minerals designed to make things smell nice - so it's a compliment! And not me using the wrong word and trying to cover it up. --DCC 13:58, 21 April 2008 (BST)
It was in no way the wrong word to use, its connection to the legal profession was entirely the point and hence drunk or not I chose the right word! Thanks for the compliment though, I suppose a voice railing (as in complain bitterly) against the pettiness of some posters does help cover up the stink thats started to linger over the Wiki ;) However my little outburst calling you all "morons" was out of order, its obvious that many of you are far from moronic.... You are venomous little trolls but at least you are not stupid.--Honestmistake 17:01, 21 April 2008 (BST)
You should be amused, we're right and you're wrong. I even have proof! Your "common usage" definition does not appear anywhere in 6 major dictionaries.

(p.s. Place your scathing reply, informing us of the illustrious moral superiority no one outside your head recognizes that you have over us and your inability to remove your head from your ass, below here) --Kid sinister 17:31, 21 April 2008 (BST)

The definition of "dickcheese" doesn't appear there either, so that means it doesn't mean anything and all uses of it are wrong, right? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 08:53, 22 April 2008 (BST)
The Oxford and Cam,bridge dictionaries are usually considered definitive.... heres the Oxford on-line definition for you: • verb (disbarred, disbarring) 1 expel (a barrister) from the Bar. 2 exclude.
That scathing enough? --Honestmistake 00:09, 22 April 2008 (BST)
If not then perhaps this version will do (and no i have not been searching all this time)

debar or disbar To debar someone is to bar or exclude them from a place or prevent them from exercising a right: Women are debarred from some London clubs; People under 18 are debarred from voting. To disbar someone means the same, but the word is used mainly in a legal context: The barrister was disbarred (expelled from the Bar). © From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia.--Honestmistake 00:25, 22 April 2008 (BST)

It taint a secret I be disliking how some of the other sysops choose to deal with certain things. I like to think it's part of why I was promoted and It's also not a secret that people not liking you for what you are doing is common. His reaction to the users who criticized him in his promotions bid, I would think, is the answer you seek. Being able to deal with some people not liking you often comes with the position and having to deal with people disagreeing with you always does. --Karekmaps?! 19:56, 20 April 2008 (BST)

Vandalism Case

He vandalized the wiki's policy on sysop promotion- he changed it without permission from the community, or a change in policy. I thought this mjight be better than misconduct for this.

Policy on Promotions He added qualifications and changed the text so as to change the policy. Nalikill 19:22, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Not Vandalism - The guidelines were written when the wiki was very young, almost two years ago. Hagnats edit to the guidelines reflects accurately upon the intended spirit of those guidelines, plus it just makes sense. Also, even if it wasnt, it was still an edit made in good faith, and not against any policy or precident i can find that would force my hand. --The Grimch U! 19:41, 8 September 2007 (BST)
Okay, it's not vandalism. But he still can't change an administrative policy without a vote. Nalikill 19:42, 8 September 2007 (BST)
He didnt. He clarified the intent of the existing guidelines to eliminate a silly loophole abusable by rules lawyers. --The Grimch U! 19:46, 8 September 2007 (BST)
Then he should add that he probably rather than, won't be accepted if it's not within the last 6 months. One is a guideline, the other is an illegal policy change. Nalikill 19:47, 8 September 2007 (BST)
No. He was fixing the policies wording to match its intent. Now i must insist that you and hagnat stop your edit war. --The Grimch U! 19:55, 8 September 2007 (BST)
Actually, Hagnat did change the rules instead of clarify them. That "in the last six months" bit was completely new and never intentioned mainly because nobody though of the possibility of inactive users running for sysop back then. Hagnat even said it was a rule change. It might be a good one but he just shouldn't decide to add it himself. Now it's probably good faith edit and not vandalism, but thats not my call anyway as you are the sysop who took on this case, but it was not fixing the policies wording to match its intent. He introduced a new one. Now Odd starter might have had the authority to write new rules back in the day but now we have policy discussions. And as long as that hasn't happened the rules should go back to what they were.-- Vista  +1  22:10, 8 September 2007 (BST)
it's only vandalism if it's done in bad faith. Since any promotion bid is due to fail it the user doesnt regulary edit the wiki, i decided to put that single line in there, so people don't put themselves for promotion unless they are really active enough. 500 in 6 months is less than 100 edits per month, which i think displays enough activity for a user to be promoted. This is a case where we dont need to go all the way through Policy discussion. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:39, 8 September 2007 (BST)
You still can't change a policy without a vote. The policy never read "within six months." Create a policy to change it to that if you want to change it to that. Otherwise, you don't have the power to change it. Nalikill 19:41, 8 September 2007 (BST)
Yes i can, and so can you. As long as the edit in question is done with common sense in mind, no one will argue about your edit, and even if they do, it's just a matter of rolling back the edit, and then questioning the edit in the policy talk page, filling an arby (in serious cases), or then moving the edit to policy discussion, if enough people are against and for the edit in question. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:46, 8 September 2007 (BST)
Not with rules hagnat. We've got a very specific system for changing the rules of this wiki. What you are describing is for general editing. And you know that.-- Vista  +1  22:17, 8 September 2007 (BST)
These were rules that Odd Starter wrote whitouve consulting the community in the first place, and they were already changed several other times without going through policy discussion. Why must we go all the way through the bureaucracy just to change a line of rules that is poorly written ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:27, 9 September 2007 (BST)
Why do we have to go through all that stupid "due process" shit to execute people? Why can't we just behead them in the streets? I mean, it's all just useless bureaucracy anyway, right? Nalikill 03:06, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Dear god Nalikill, compare a minor change in the rules with executing someone... what are you smoking man ? They are completly different things. Even the Spanish Inquiistion had a whole bureaucracy to burn... erm, judge if someone was a witch or not. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 06:10, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Further Discussion

please tell me you are not going to make me go through two awful weeks of useless debate and voting just... to change... a fricking.. line!! C'mon, 500 edits in six months is more than enough to be called activity, several people get this in less than two months and any user with less than that is already voted down. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:18, 9 September 2007 (BST)

I've no problem with the change, but I'm not comfortable with changing it in the middle of someone's promotion bid. It could be seen as changing the rules in order to invalidate that person. They put their bid up under the old guidelines, let the bid run it's course at least, before changing it on them The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 03:09 9 September 2007 (BST)
I'm fine with the changes agreed on here. Anything else, as has been said, would be overkill (translation: need policy discussion), no matter when the changes are made. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:51, 9 September 2007 (BST)
There is a note in Deathnuts promotion bid warning people that there was a change in the guidelines, and that his promotion bid is valid following the old guidelines, so what's the problem in changing that line now ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 06:08, 9 September 2007 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Promotions/Archive3&oldid=1377849"