UDWiki talk:Administration/Sysop Archives/Karek/2008-01-06 Promotion
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Karek Bid: vote discussions
- Against - You contribute a hell of a lot and I have no doubt that you can do most of the required work but I just don't think we need another Grim... When we have a few more "liberal" sysops to form a balance then you might be able to convince me.--Honestmistake 10:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- lol --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hahaha. Though i am flattered by the implication that im as strong or stronger than all other 25 sysops are combined, and in an argument it may very well be true, however one vote against 25 is about as effective as 2 votes against 25, and karek and i are completely different people. Sure, we agree about some things, but putting down as a prerequisite that there be more wikignomes and such as sysops before allowing in another wikidragon (I dont know where that humourous header came from but i suspect its a new addition) like myself is, to be blunt, silly. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- 18 active sysops. And of those, how many regularly patrol Vandal Banning, home of the bulldog? Where you yourself recently went unchallenged by the rest of the sysop community as you warned someone for making a joke. Karek's shown all the signs of aggressive intransigence in conflict situations, which flags him up as a dangerous person to put into A/VB cases, much like yourself. The difference is, you're already a sysop, and he isn't. So, we get to vote against him. You seem troubled by this display of democracy, and only too ready to denounce anyone who disagrees with you here, by denegrating their collective character. And that, to be blunt in return, is rather sad. --Funt Solo QT
11:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC) - Is that why you so vehemently opposed getting rid of inactive sysops, so you can claim to be only one of 25? That's a laugh. You strongly oppose anyone who isn't a mini-you on the basis that there's plenty of sysops on the books already... and don't let us get rid of the ones that arn't actually around. What. A. Joke -- boxy talk • i 11:30 7 January 2008 (BST)
- Boxy, you must be as dense as fucking neutronium. The two comments are unconnected, except in your fondest delusions. Seriously, are you trying to be stupid here, because i find it hard to believe someone like you could act so retarded. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's more to a Sysop's job than A/VB and those pages need active sysops patrolling them far more than A/VB which, while a magnet for drama also is the most frequented by any and all sysops we currently have. I don't see why I would ever be needed on A/VB.--Karekmaps?! 11:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thats not very different to what Grim said during his own promotion bid.... thing is though that beyond misconduct there is no way to stop you becoming active anywhere you wish. If the position was for a set term then I would vote for you but I do not think you are suited to some areas which you may well end up gravitating to!
- Oh and Grim... I don't think you are stronger than the other sysops, just louder and more interested in posturing than the rest of them! Pretty much every rebuttal you make attacks your target (usually by calling them stupid). You do not discuss, you just take the offensive and are proud of the fact. When it comes to clear cut cases of vandalism you are without doubt the best sysop to deal with the problem, if the matter calls for negotiation or evaluating other opinion... well frankly you suck! --Honestmistake 12:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, a die hard supporter of the gray fallacy. You see one person saying white, and another person saying bloack, and assume the best result lies somewhere in grey. I do not give ground freely. I require convincing, at the same time i will try to convince the other person that they are wrong and i am right. If it stalemates in an obviously neutral position (With neither of us being able to rebut or undermine the opponents position), then negotiation is the way to handle it. However, and not meaning to toot my own horn, im just so much more skilled in argument than anyone else here that its very hard to beat me back. A/VB is not a negotiation. Things are either Vandalism or they arent, with things in the gray area being decided on their merits. These are the realms of the arguments. You do not negotiate in such a place. In courts of law they have two lawyers who argue a case as forcefully as possible to get to the truth of the matter, rather than settling on gray. Negotiation and plain discussion is not the way to solve such things. Argument is (And i dont mean quarreling, i mean logical argument). --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- this is not a court and lawyers are unpopular for good reason! Actually, i mostly agree with you on A/VB. When there is clear evidence of vandalism you are the best man for the job, where that vandalism is a matter of deciding good/bad faith your views and mine diverge in pretty much opposite directions, we have had this out and neither of us is going to convince the other so I am not going to bother. In anycase that is not where I find you most objectionable. Your arrogance appals me and your manners are worse, you may have time to trawl pages to support your arguments but do not mistake that for superiority... it isn't its just that some of us have better things to do! I don't think anyone here would argue that you do not have the skill or dedication to do the job, sadly though you think you are better than everyone else and enjoy telling them. You revel in the attention your abrasiveness gets you and counter every attempt to moderate your behaviour with the same old responses. There was no reason for you to SPAM this promotion bid with responses to votes you have no hope of changing except to draw your daily dose in the spotlight, and don't try to claim you never intended to do just that... even the densest of hypothetically dense things could see that your rather charming responses would draw replies! It is to Kareks credit that he has kept such responses to a minimum... If only you could.--Honestmistake 13:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is not arrogance to stand up and argue for what you believe in, and do it well. Just because i dont capitulate the second someone challenges me on any issue doesnt mean im an arrogant jerk, nor does fighting for what i believe is right. Also, you confuse rudeness with directness. I cut through the crap and say what needs to be said. I fail to see why anyone here is shocked by this since ive been doing it since day 1. I have also explained this on more than one occasion. I have not once said, anywhere that i feel i am better than anyone else. I have stated on some issues that i was right and others were wrong, but that isnt anywhere near the same, and there was universally a rather strong argument to back up why i felt that way. You are just making that shit up. You also mistakenly confuse my desire to assist a person i consider a friend, insofar as friends can be made online, with seeking the spotlight. I honestly dont care about the spotlight. Whoop de doo, some idiots shining a light on me. Who cares. Im blunt, direct, and i dont much care for how other people feel about me (Nice attempt though, to try and claim you know my motivations better than i do, you should be a cop or something). Ive explained this all before, and yet you still leap to the wrong conclusions like a life preserver in a raging river. How about we cut to the heart of the matter. You disagree with me on A/VB because i take a harsher line than you would yourself. Doesnt matter how much harsher, but there we are. Everything else is just a bunch of erroneous assumptions of yours born from my mind being much more different to yours than you expected. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- this is not a court and lawyers are unpopular for good reason! Actually, i mostly agree with you on A/VB. When there is clear evidence of vandalism you are the best man for the job, where that vandalism is a matter of deciding good/bad faith your views and mine diverge in pretty much opposite directions, we have had this out and neither of us is going to convince the other so I am not going to bother. In anycase that is not where I find you most objectionable. Your arrogance appals me and your manners are worse, you may have time to trawl pages to support your arguments but do not mistake that for superiority... it isn't its just that some of us have better things to do! I don't think anyone here would argue that you do not have the skill or dedication to do the job, sadly though you think you are better than everyone else and enjoy telling them. You revel in the attention your abrasiveness gets you and counter every attempt to moderate your behaviour with the same old responses. There was no reason for you to SPAM this promotion bid with responses to votes you have no hope of changing except to draw your daily dose in the spotlight, and don't try to claim you never intended to do just that... even the densest of hypothetically dense things could see that your rather charming responses would draw replies! It is to Kareks credit that he has kept such responses to a minimum... If only you could.--Honestmistake 13:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Move discussion somewhere else, please. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 12:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Against - too quick to delete other people's posts without an attempt to find a middle ground. This causes needless antagonism. Which is a pity, as for me it overshadows the positive things he's tried to do. MoyesT RPM 11:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- In part of course I am, as it was at this point I first heard of you. And when I visited your talk page to discuss it with you I discovered you have somewhat of a penchant for unilateral deleting. Anyway, to your credit you explained yourself even if I still disagree with you :)MoyesT RPM 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, y'see, he was completely right in removing that thing. That kind of stuff goes on the talk page, if anywhere. Suburb news is for news, not coordination or leaving messages. There is quite a bit of content removal going on over at the Pitneybank page as a result of people not getting this. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Grimch, I'm not saying that it was necessarily wrong to remove my post, and that of others. What I'm trying to highlight is that there was no warning or explanation for the act until I asked the question. And I'll happily admit to being at fault if the tone of my post was too joky, NPOV or whatever...but I would hope that anyone hoping to be a sysop would at least have made a post on my talk page to say 'Hi, I've removed your post because.... etc etc '- and that is the reason I'm against Karek's nomination at this time. MoyesT RPM 13:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- He wasnt hoping to be a sysop 2 months ago, or even a week ago. I dont think he honestly cared until i urged him to run. He isnt ineterested in power. besides, theres no need to explain. Its common sense not to post requests in a news section, and no one is under any obligation to go to a persons talk page and explain in detail why they did anything with what you edited. Lately ive been demolishing and rewriting entire pages of this wiki, and i plan to keep going for a few months. Im not about to go to every single contributors talk page and explain my actions, id be here till March if i were to do so. If they take issue with it, maybe. If not, i honestly dont care. Your reason for being against, quite frankly, sucks. Its tiny and its petty. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hahaha..."i honestly dont care. Your reason for being against, quite frankly, sucks. Its tiny and its petty" What a calm, rational response. That's me told then. If you want to continue demonstrating what an important guy you are feel free to carry on on my talk page. MoyesT RPM 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Using expressive and descriptive langauge doesnt make one agitated or anything other than calm. Id rezally appreciate it if you jumped to less conclusions. Besides,according to what you have said, every good thing he has done for this wiki is overshadowed by the fact he didnt go to your talk page and explain why he removed your post at the time. If i am feeling anything, it would be "flabbergasted". --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hahaha..."i honestly dont care. Your reason for being against, quite frankly, sucks. Its tiny and its petty" What a calm, rational response. That's me told then. If you want to continue demonstrating what an important guy you are feel free to carry on on my talk page. MoyesT RPM 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- He wasnt hoping to be a sysop 2 months ago, or even a week ago. I dont think he honestly cared until i urged him to run. He isnt ineterested in power. besides, theres no need to explain. Its common sense not to post requests in a news section, and no one is under any obligation to go to a persons talk page and explain in detail why they did anything with what you edited. Lately ive been demolishing and rewriting entire pages of this wiki, and i plan to keep going for a few months. Im not about to go to every single contributors talk page and explain my actions, id be here till March if i were to do so. If they take issue with it, maybe. If not, i honestly dont care. Your reason for being against, quite frankly, sucks. Its tiny and its petty. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Grimch, I'm not saying that it was necessarily wrong to remove my post, and that of others. What I'm trying to highlight is that there was no warning or explanation for the act until I asked the question. And I'll happily admit to being at fault if the tone of my post was too joky, NPOV or whatever...but I would hope that anyone hoping to be a sysop would at least have made a post on my talk page to say 'Hi, I've removed your post because.... etc etc '- and that is the reason I'm against Karek's nomination at this time. MoyesT RPM 13:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, y'see, he was completely right in removing that thing. That kind of stuff goes on the talk page, if anywhere. Suburb news is for news, not coordination or leaving messages. There is quite a bit of content removal going on over at the Pitneybank page as a result of people not getting this. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- 'Flabbergasted' is better...because now you are arguing your case maturely instead of throwing out petty insults like 'your reason....sucks'. See the difference? Now, to put this to rest, Karek's standing for sysop means that every wiki user gets an oppertunity to either vouch, abstain or vote against (and preferably back up their decision). This I have done. Your defence of karek is admirable in a way, but railing against me just because you don't happen to agree with my reason is...well...curious. We're all allowed an opinion aren't we? Including ones that don't necessarily agree with yours? MoyesT RPM 13:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am hardly railing against you, nor do i need a patronising lecture on debate from someone i can only assume to be an amatuer given how illogical your "vote" is. You have a minor problem. Trivial even. And you stand there and somehow manage to claim that that one trivial lack of needless formality that no one observes somehow outweighs every single positive contribution that he has ever made to this wiki. The only ways this is remotely possible is if you are trolling, or if you took it personally. Either way, you have immeasurably weakened your say in the matter with your admission. This is not a vote, this is a sounding board for opinions from the community, and you have all but admitted that the motivation behind your Against "vote" is petty revenge. I see no need to discuss things further with you. Good day. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since then Moyes I actually actively avoid messing with News sections in suburbs, it seems like any type of attempt at quality control there will cause problems with whoever is doing the removing so If I am editing a suburb these days it's usually to parts that aren't connected to the news section, such as updating maps, the suburb description, or very rarely, adding a news reports with evidence and a corresponding Danger Report update.--Karekmaps?! 04:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Although, I'm sure, I can provide my removal record from back then for anyone interested in learning more about it, the sheer majority of it is actually linked on my talk page as I think only about 5 of those edits I ever made didn't have someone coming to complain about them.--Karekmaps?! 04:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- In part of course I am, as it was at this point I first heard of you. And when I visited your talk page to discuss it with you I discovered you have somewhat of a penchant for unilateral deleting. Anyway, to your credit you explained yourself even if I still disagree with you :)MoyesT RPM 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
An Unfortionate Response
I'm gonna address two specific Against comments as their wordiness seems to actually be being used to hide what they are about.
- Dylan Mak Tyme, pretty simple really, just read this in which he tries to get Sonny banned and Boxy removed as a Sysop.
- The Envoy, various things, mostly while he was harassing Sonny(thus where the me being a Sonny meatpuppet stuff comes from). You can find those discussions here, here, and here(There's more on the talk page)
If you want to hear, from me, about any other against comments please stop by my talk page and ask, I'll tell you whatever wish to know with links to the back stories, etc.--Karekmaps?! 06:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
