UDWiki talk:Administration/Sysop Archives/Suicidalangel/2009-07-31 Re-Evaluation
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
SA's Bid
- Abstain - Total sham. Even if this got 100% Against votes, Link wouldn't have the balls the demote. More rigged, calculated political maneuvering.-- | T | BALLS! | 20:47 1 August 2009(BST)
- Yes, it was totally rigged. I planned it all out before I became a sysops. The me doing this six months, me becoming a 'crat, link becoming a 'crat, AND your ever so clearly disguised against vote. Yep, I clearly made everything happen exactly how I wanted it to, even though I didn't have control over a lot of shit.-- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 23:48, 1 August 2009 (BST)
- I loled. Perhaps you should read SA's original bid, and notice that six months ago, before I was even a sysop, not to mention crat, he wrote that he would put himself up for reassessment in six months time. Yeah, SA obviously knew six months ago that he was going to be a crat and that I was going to be a crat now. But, hey, you'll completely ignore this evidence as we're both crats (which obviously makes us inherently untrustworthy,) and that it invalidates your "ZOMG SA IS TAKING OVER TEH WIKI!!!" conspiracy. Linkthewindow Talk 01:34, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- Its not that your untrustworthy its just the people should always question those in power --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 01:37, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- How about no? Not for every fucking move they make.--SirArgo Talk 01:41, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- Basically. There's a difference between questioning those in power, and yelling "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!" whenever they do pretty much anything (that you don't like.) Linkthewindow Talk 01:44, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- You should watch them careully but not go "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!" everytime and edit is made (Thats why i stalk the sysop's contrib pages) --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 01:47, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- Basically. There's a difference between questioning those in power, and yelling "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!" whenever they do pretty much anything (that you don't like.) Linkthewindow Talk 01:44, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- How about no? Not for every fucking move they make.--SirArgo Talk 01:41, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- You're the ones screaming ZOMG CONSPIRACY, for christs sake. Typical over-reaction. Never claimed anyone "planned shit out 6 months ago". The whole fuckin system here is broken, you don't need to plan 6 months ahead for that. The idea that normal users get any voice on this shit at all is a sham. A handful of people get to decide and they always rub each others back's out of self-preservation. About as far from a "conspiracy" as you can get. But it sounds better for you to characterize it that way any time it gets pointed out, right? And no ones going to "take over the wiki". Jesus fuckin Christ. Those same handful of people that cover each others asses don't want any single individual one of them to "take over", so that generally gets taken care of itself. Doesn't stop certain people from trying though. Nothing "conspiratorial" about basic egotistical, power-grabbing human behavior. Get over it.-- | T | BALLS! | 03:34 2 August 2009(BST)
- Get a grip. Any 'crat who promoted, or re-approved, a sysop when there was anything like 100% against on the community input would be misconducted in a minute. Even WanYao, who seems to be your favourite revolutionary (he's not, BTW) ATM, would have been promoted, not that long ago, if he'd have actually shown a clear commitment to staying with the wiki at the time. It's a common theme, claiming that "the 'crats" rule the wiki, and no-one else has a say, but unless you can point to a case (they're all archived) where the crats have gone against clear community opinion, then you're just blowing hot air. And finally, this isn't the place to make this argument. You're supposed to be talking about this sysops fitness for the job here. Please do so -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:44 2 August 2009 (BST)
- Wrong.-- | T | BALLS! | 05:04 2 August 2009(BST)
- Unsurprisingly, Boxy's right. Unless they is clear evidence of meatpuppeting, sockpupetting or other kinds of vote fraud, no sysop is going to promote a user who has a large margin against them. It won't happen. Last time it happened (Amazing) Kevan intervened (it's all in the user rights log.) Again can you point to one recent case where a bureaucrat went against clear community opinion? Think the system's broken? A/PD. Don't like the current crats? Wait until the next round and vote them out. Simple as that. Think a user could do a good job as sysop? Nominate them. Linkthewindow Talk 06:58, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- Also, promotions of popular users don't always work. Not saying that popularity's a bad thing, but promoting someone purely because they've got a large number of vouches is pure stupidity. Linkthewindow Talk 07:03, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- I love how you two respond under my second comment, but actually address the first. Nice dodging there. Maybe I exaggerated on the first point, but the real point is, none of this crap matters. It's just calculated political maneuvering.-- | T | BALLS! | 07:21 2 August 2009(BST)
- It's not like users who put themselves up for reassessment always get repromoted or anything. The point is, whenever a sysop puts themselves up for repromontion, they don't know for sure if they'll be repromoted or not. I'm also still looking for evidence of crats going against community opinion (which you accused the crat team of doing in the second comment - "The idea that normal users get any voice on this shit at all is a sham.") Linkthewindow Talk 07:32, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- Here's a new thought guys, you're ALL a bunch of retards and this doesn't even matter?--CyberRead240 07:16, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- We can do that after ZL/imthaguy have finished the "no normal userz dunt have any powerz :(:(:(" line of thought. It is reasonably entertaining.-- Adward 14:07, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- I don't actually have anything to add, I'm just posting to share my kickin' rad sig with more people. Cyberbob Talk 14:27, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- My sig is better than yours (and my cock is bigger)-- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 16:28, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- I actually have to agree that Cyberbob has an awesome sig now.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:21, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- I suggest that everyone's sig could use more mudkipz. Including mine. --Bob Boberton TF / DW
21:53, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- I suggest that everyone's sig could use more mudkipz. Including mine. --Bob Boberton TF / DW
- I actually have to agree that Cyberbob has an awesome sig now.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:21, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- My sig is better than yours (and my cock is bigger)-- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 16:28, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- I don't actually have anything to add, I'm just posting to share my kickin' rad sig with more people. Cyberbob Talk 14:27, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- We can do that after ZL/imthaguy have finished the "no normal userz dunt have any powerz :(:(:(" line of thought. It is reasonably entertaining.-- Adward 14:07, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- I love how you two respond under my second comment, but actually address the first. Nice dodging there. Maybe I exaggerated on the first point, but the real point is, none of this crap matters. It's just calculated political maneuvering.-- | T | BALLS! | 07:21 2 August 2009(BST)
- Get a grip. Any 'crat who promoted, or re-approved, a sysop when there was anything like 100% against on the community input would be misconducted in a minute. Even WanYao, who seems to be your favourite revolutionary (he's not, BTW) ATM, would have been promoted, not that long ago, if he'd have actually shown a clear commitment to staying with the wiki at the time. It's a common theme, claiming that "the 'crats" rule the wiki, and no-one else has a say, but unless you can point to a case (they're all archived) where the crats have gone against clear community opinion, then you're just blowing hot air. And finally, this isn't the place to make this argument. You're supposed to be talking about this sysops fitness for the job here. Please do so -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:44 2 August 2009 (BST)
- Its not that your untrustworthy its just the people should always question those in power --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 01:37, 2 August 2009 (BST)
- Mudkipz havent been funny for a very, very long time.--CyberRead240 04:33, 3 August 2009 (BST)
- >:C --Bob Boberton TF / DW 06:04, 3 August 2009 (BST)
- Fuckin' damn.--SirArgo Talk 06:33, 3 August 2009 (BST)
- plz be not stealing our template kthanx.-- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 07:07, 3 August 2009 (BST)
- >:C --Bob Boberton TF / DW
- Mudkipz havent been funny for a very, very long time.--CyberRead240 04:33, 3 August 2009 (BST)
thread tl;dnr... though i'm sure why my name was dragged into this... but FTR i don't think am one of ZL's favourite peolpe, in any regard... in fact, we have a history of loathing each other, however, we seem to have common ground in perceiving the sysop team as an almost untouchable clique who watch each others' backs quite well. and it's not just us two users who feel that way. but, whatever... /waits for cyberbobs troll-quip/ /yawns/ --WanYao 13:16, 12 August 2009 (BST)
