User talk:Kid sinister
what a waste of time. Kid sinister 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Warning
Editing another users comments beyond simple spelling and grammar is not allowed on this wiki, continuing to do so may result in your editing privileges being revoked - Vantar 01:12, 16 April 2008 (BST)
- I have since fixed the quote in question. Kid sinister 04:09, 16 April 2008 (BST)
You received a warning for impersonation. You can see the case here, Further vandalism wil result in your editing privileges being revoked -- Vista +1 13:32, 18 April 2008 (BST)
For you
1 --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 02:34, 16 April 2008 (BST)
Heads will roll
LOL... from where is this shit ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:21, 19 April 2008 (BST)
- that's from the movie Zombie Doom, a.k.a. Violent Shit 3. --Kid sinister 00:15, 20 April 2008 (BST)
Arbitration?
I'm not really bothered either way, I'm just a philosophically trained wanker who enjoys logically deconstructing stupid arguments. Arbitration can be amusing but yeh you're probably not going to "win" cos winning on this wiki usually means having the editing privileges to either ignore or ban someone you can't argue with or shout down. --Zeug 07:59, 22 April 2008 (BST)
So ... Vista is ready for arbitration and has suggested Karek. If you can be bothered taking it on it looks like a way for Vista to save face and allow the vandalism retraction. And it would set a wiki precedent against simply going after Goons just cos a majority of the UD community doesn't like you lot. They're forced to take you seriously in the City and will naturally abuse the wiki process to continue the fight. Staking a legitimate Goons claim on both will go a long way towards the extinction of revival in Malton.--Zeug 08:13, 26 April 2008 (BST)
- I'm prepared to go to Arby's too, but it look like Vista is ready to come around without needing to go to arbitration. According to his contributions list he's been MIA for the past 2 days, which would explain his silence. Let's wait a few more days. If Vista waffles about lifting the warning or just plain doesn't show up, then we'll go to arbitration. --Kid sinister 17:19, 26 April 2008 (BST)
As Vista has yet to show up I've gone ahead and struck the Warning escalations, until he returns to comment on this their gone as per his comments that he would strike them.--Karekmaps?! 04:13, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- Well aren't you a peach? Actually, how the heck does he get to keep his sysop job if he's always out of the office? Is he Rip Van Winkle or something? --
#-0 - kid sinister TMG 04:20, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- It's more of a recent thing with him being out, he did actually try to demote himself fully but was convinced only to give up the 'crat seat. The current timelimit for demoting inactive sysops is actually pretty large, something like 4-6 months.--Karekmaps?! 04:24, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- Wow... "trusted users" with "an interest in improving the wiki" have a 4 to 6 month window to show they in fact care? And you expect wikigoers to respect your position? --#-0 - kid sinister TMG 04:35, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- It is a bit absurd how easy it is to keep the position without actually doing anything in it, and it's not like there isn't enough work for them to be doing something, even a single administrative edit a day.--Karekmaps?! 04:38, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- Umm, you didn't answer my question... Do you all expect wikigoers to respect your position when you have 4-6 months before you get the axe for inactivity? --#-0 - kid sinister TMG 04:43, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- I really don't know how to answer that, however I would be completely for reducing the limit to something more reasonable along with limiting it to administrative edits instead of any edits, it would lead to more removal of people who don't know what they are doing or who only pop in to rule on Misconduct cases. A similar policy was attempted in the not so distant past and failed, only to be followed up by the policy now in place, before that it was a promotion for life position that you could only be removed from on request or misconduct.--Karekmaps?! 04:50, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- Umm, you didn't answer my question... Do you all expect wikigoers to respect your position when you have 4-6 months before you get the axe for inactivity? --
- It is a bit absurd how easy it is to keep the position without actually doing anything in it, and it's not like there isn't enough work for them to be doing something, even a single administrative edit a day.--Karekmaps?! 04:38, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- Wow... "trusted users" with "an interest in improving the wiki" have a 4 to 6 month window to show they in fact care? And you expect wikigoers to respect your position? --
- It's more of a recent thing with him being out, he did actually try to demote himself fully but was convinced only to give up the 'crat seat. The current timelimit for demoting inactive sysops is actually pretty large, something like 4-6 months.--Karekmaps?! 04:24, 11 May 2008 (BST)
Wiki News
hi. Just to note that we don't advertise when a policy fails, even in this unique time it got closed by kevan. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:35, 9 May 2008 (BST)
Only passes. Fails don't make a difference. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:37, 9 May 2008 (BST)
- Could one of you two please post the policy that says this or are you making this up? --#-0 - kid sinister TMG 19:39, 9 May 2008 (BST)
- We really aren't, trust me. You can check the history of the template, only passed gets mentioned. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:41, 9 May 2008 (BST) He's falling fer it!
- I don't fucking trust you. Policy or it gets reverted. --#-0 - kid sinister TMG 19:42, 9 May 2008 (BST)
- Alright, UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion. #7 says approved policies get mentioned. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:43, 9 May 2008 (BST)
- #7 Says nothing about policies that are vetoed against majority opinion. --#-0 - kid sinister TMG 20:03, 9 May 2008 (BST)
- #7 Says nothing about policies that are vetoed against majority opinion. --
- Alright, UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion. #7 says approved policies get mentioned. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:43, 9 May 2008 (BST)
- I don't fucking trust you. Policy or it gets reverted. --
- Not everything on the wiki runs on policies... most of them work based on common sense and the good judgement of the users that use each sections of the wiki... as the user behind the creation of this news box, trust me that it was never intended to advertise failed policy votings, failed elections or anything else... only to advertise changes to the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:46, 9 May 2008 (BST)
- One more time: I don't fucking trust you. This news item was in the "good judgment" of 72% of those wiki users voting for it. Something unprecedented in the history of this wiki is in fact "news". Look, I don't want to have to report you for a Vandal Banning, so please make the right decision. --#-0 - kid sinister TMG 20:03, 9 May 2008 (BST)
- Two users have already explained to you why this shouldn't be posted on the wiki news thing... you could send me to A/VB, but that would only be ruled as not vandalism and you'd be directed to arbitration... please, do not create drama over something so trivial as this. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:29, 9 May 2008 (BST)
- One more time: I don't fucking trust you. This news item was in the "good judgment" of 72% of those wiki users voting for it. Something unprecedented in the history of this wiki is in fact "news". Look, I don't want to have to report you for a Vandal Banning, so please make the right decision. --
- We really aren't, trust me. You can check the history of the template, only passed gets mentioned. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:41, 9 May 2008 (BST) He's falling fer it!
Family, the Future, and Chronal Penetrators
soon....
 |
Katthew For Sysop |
| This user demands change and a return to common sense. Vote Katthew! We will stop at nothing to promote her. |
Needs Moar Fulci
