UDWiki talk:Administration/Sysop Archives/Misanthropy/2009-11-19 Promotion

Misanthropy

• Abstain Against - You seem to be great, but I don't really know you, or how you'd deal with things. Also, too many of your edits seem to be about your own group or userspace.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  Alright, I've just run through your last 500 edits to check I'm right, and I drummed out that 265 of your last 500 edits were on your own group or user page. Or their talks, templates, etc. Now, you might get a weak vouch out of me from that, but the fact that 105 of those edits were made shortly after DDR's comment that you needed less user comments makes me kind of less inclined to.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  Truth be told, most of my edits have always been in user spaces and talk pages, all about useless shit too. The only reason I got promoted was because of Assylum. I learned all about the administration and how it works because of it. So spam and user talk pages shouldn't exactly be discounted. It's his knowledge when he DOES visit admin pages and the like that should be thought of. And also, you can do admin-y things on talk pages. Like helping with sigs, formatting, letting people know the proper way to go about things, etc. -- SA 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  Of course now that I re-read your comment, I realize I had read it wrong initially. Oh well. My comment stands!-- SA 18:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not saying they should be discounted. I just don't think they should be the basis. Hence why I'm abstaining.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  My abstain was because I didn't know how you'd handle drama. Now that I've seen your actions on DevSug, I know how you deal with it, and I'm not keen on you making Sysop. Especially considering the inflation you'd get if you were to act this way on admin pages. You'd need to do quite a bit to change my mind.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  What did he do, other than point out that ZL's original suggestion dissapeared about 30 seconds after a warning to avoid taking flamebait was posted? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  Copy-pasted and re-added the comments that were taken out with it. 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  Repeatedly calling ZL a vandal because ZL wanted to add a new variatioon of his suggestion, which is perfectly within his rights.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  otoh you thought riling Iscariot up was a good idea Cyberbob  Talk  07:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  Let's not overstate things here. At least from what I've seen, ZL submitted two virtually identical suggestions (see diff), Misanthropy restored the somewhat critical comments from the first one after ZL nuked them (potentially by accident), then restored them again after ZL very intentionally wiped them out. After that, he referred to him as a "vandal" just once on DS (here). This is much ado about nothing. —Aichon— 08:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  I'll admit that using the word 'vandal' was a bad idea, but restoring deleted talk comments, especially when ther removal seemed highly suspect, is something I'll stand by. 09:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  So, people can no longer remove their suggestions on DevSug? And they can't submit new versions? Wow, I can't believe I missed those policies going through.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  there are no policies in a sense, just discussions about it and then voting to implement it. You don't have to create a new policy page and all that fiddle fuss. Just make a topic on the appropriate talk page, and eventually vote on it. Being that's how it's done, it's quite possible for anyone to miss their implementation.-- SA 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  Except it hasn't happened. He's just trying to enforce rules which don't exist.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think he was trying to enforce rules. It's simply bad form to delete others' comments if all you're doing is a minor change, and he was trying to do the courteous thing in that situation by restoring the comments. —Aichon— 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  The "helpful comments" you keep referring to are one which no longer applies to the suggeston. In fact, he changed it for that very reason. So, I can only assume that the comment you all found so helpful was Lelouch telling him that he shouldn't be afforded the same righst as everybody else, and that the suggestion was spam, when it clearly wasn't. Sure it needed developing, but that's the purpose of the page.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  First, I never used that term or claimed they were helpful (I simply called them "critical"; see definition #1). Second, the content of the comments is irrelevant; it's still bad form to nuke comments. Third, we're way off-topic. Talk page? —Aichon— 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  Removing your suggestion and resubmitting it with little to no changes (unless the one change you made is the entire suggestion anyways. The entire system is bullshit really) is a bad faith action considered by many to be a way to get rid of comments you don't like. It's been like this for ages now. If that happens, we restore the original comments, and tell the suggester their a naughty person and if they keep it up no one will listen-to/like their suggestions, and it could lead to official warnings. ZL should have put the V2 bit on the new suggestion when he posted it though, because up until then, it looked almost exactly the same with a cursory glance, it even had the same name, which could easily appear to be a resubmission of the exact same suggestion, with the offending comments censored. Hell, if any of the comments were still valid, Mis could have added them back in without a single person being able to tell him no. It's been like this for ages now

  He tried to enforce precedent that's been around longer than you have, and you really should look into things more before go calling someone else unfit for 'op. Mis handled the situation quite well, he even backed off when he learned it was a new suggestion. At this point, I'm thinking you might be a bit jealous of him, since there's a lot more support for him than you.

  Also, no one called those comments helpful you stupid shit. God damn, do you not know how to read?-- SA 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  *Cough Cough*-- SA 18:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  Talk page, anyone? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  No, they called them critical, as in important, which is actually a stronger word than helpful. And as you said, if they were still applicable, he could have kept them. The fact that they weren't is why I'm not happy. And, if you mean "handled well", you mean being generally unpleasant to ZL and then being annoyed, then I guess so. And I know that he handled it politely (after seeing that it was a new suggestion, which you think he would've taken the time to check.) In fact, I had a polite conversation with him on his talk. I changed my opinion to an against, and he knows why, and anyone who's read my comments should also know why. That's what matters.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Edit Conflict

  No, they called them critical, as in the comments were cutting, not important. That still doesn't make them helpful, and it still show's that you're just makign shit up as you go. You're not happy because of a single mistake that others probably see as more ZL's fault for not finishing the name change in the same post. You want to call him unpleasant? Considering Mis originally though that ZL was just censoring people, the dick comment was entirely justified. ZL was more offensive than Mis was (and I don't fault him for it either). You changed your opinion to an against based on rather flimsy shit, that has been disproven. It's your opinion, I don't care how you feel. It's the fact that you're here lying about "policies" and hurling horseshit at another candidate, while being wrong yourself.-- SA 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, wrong kind of critical. And this doesn't go to ZL's conduct, it goes to Mis'. He should have talked to ZL about it, not just thrown the comments back on. And my original comment stated that I didn't know how he would react to drama. So I abstained. When i knew that he didn't react well, and leapt to an assumption, I changed it to an against. If he had acted perfectly, I would have vouched. I haven't lied about policies either, I don't see where you're getting that from. Now, we can continue this on the talk, or your talk. It's your choice, but this is getting moved now.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll spell it out for you.

1. You lied about policies by saying he was enforcing rules which don't exist. They do, as precedent. Though he wasn't entirely correct, if he had been, he'd have been in the right to replace them. You were wrong, and now you want to feign ignorance by saying you don't know what I'm talking about.
2. It's common practice to revert the damage then talk to people. You should know that by now.
3. He reacted rather well, considering some people would have jumped straight to A/VB, making what would end up a frivolous case.
4. You can't fault one's conduct without faulting the other in this situation, ZL should have explained that he hadn't changed the name yet, and that it really did have changes, instead of telling Mis to go fuck himself, and leaving the name as it was. they were both at fault for their conduct, now quit trying to push it on Mis.

Got it?-- SA 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's alot clearer. And thanks for being civil, by the way. Frankly, I didn't lie about policy. I said there wasn't, and there wasn't. I missed out on the precedent thing, but fairly enough, ZL was just updating his suggestion with a newer version, a practice he has taken part in before, with his barricade degradation and weapon breaking suggestions, neither of which people had a problem with. I guess I agree that his conduct is important in the matter, but only if provocative. They both amplified at the same rate, so I didn't consider it to be vital. A kind of 6 of one situation. Mis' was the only one relevant to his bid. Your comment has proven that i was incorrect. For 2, I agree, but he made no attempt to contact ZL. It was ZL commentign in an edit summary which finally showed him the situation. And yes, he did do well in not sending ZL to A/VB, but still, not sending him to VB isn't vouch-worthy. Sending him to VB would've been an against, but not doign it isn't compellign enough for a vouch.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And I understand your reasons for not vouching for him. I don't care if you do or not, it's not my business. I just wanted to make sure you, and any others that saw it, wouldn't make their decision based off of incorrect information.-- SA 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my reasoning did get a bit confusing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

To anyone who says that ZL actually wanted to make a helpful and constructive suggestion or believes that what he submitted couldn't possibly lead to trolling... Above? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Shitstorm. Let's stop arguing. First, I saw what appeared to me to be a bad faith attempt to remove the talk comments of others, by resubmitting a suggestion with trivial changes in order to bypass negative comments. I re-added those comments, and revetred a change to re-remove them. When I saw that it would become an edit war and lead to further drama, I backed off, knowing that any criticism could be freshly launched by the original parties without causing any excess drama. I did not know about precendent, instead working on the (correct, going by the welcome packet) assumption that bad faith removal of talk comments is a big no-no. I didn't go to A/VB, despite my gut saying so, because again, I wanted to avoid a pointless case that would have done more harm than good. The intent the entire time was simply to stick to what seemed to be 'the rules'. When drama loomed, I stopped being heavy-handed so as to keep order. If that sabotages my bid, so be it, there's always another time in a few months, if I decide to try again. I'm not going to let drama stir on my behalf, so let that be the end of it, please. 03:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Timestamps. This conversation ended days ago. But the above comment just made me happy that I voted against.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of when it ended, I don't like being argued about without a chance to say my piece, especially when people are assuming bad faith on my behalf. 00:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)