User talk:WanYao

Nota bene before posting here

Post new comments on top, please. And sign them.

Trolling and drama-whoring will not be tolerated. Any post may be deleted at my sole discretion.

Thanks for your time. ;)

Here is an archive of old discussions. And here is another archive of even older discussions.

Sooper Sekrit Link to Classyfried Pr0jectz

---

---

Serious question.

What is it going to take to convince you of anything? If I was able to stay out of trouble for, say, six months, would that be enough? I'm just looking to do what's best here because obviously something has been going wrong up until this point. --Cyberbob 16:09, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Your long history of blatantly trollish behavior; this recent movement to impose your own vision of how things how ought to be done onto the wiki; and just generally not having a grip on your emotions (just look at your bizarre and inexplicable reactions re: those image deletions)... Because of all this, you have not merely zero credibility -- but negative number credibility. I don't consider you fit to be a sysop. Period. --WanYao 16:18, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. Hopefully one day you'll see me in a better light, but I guess you're not in the mood for thinking about that. I'm finding it a little difficult to believe that there is physically nothing I could ever ever do to change your mind - by the looks not even behaving perfectly for a whole year (or whatever) would make a difference in your opinion of me but hey. That's your perogative. --Cyberbob 16:22, 18 July 2009 (BST)

One other little thing: I would have thought that you'd want me to have the opportunity to become a better sysop because surely looking to reform the sysop team would have a better outcome for the wiki than simply trimming its numbers? --Cyberbob 16:25, 18 July 2009 (BST)

edit conflicted And... Yeah I know that's pretty harsh... But, you may not believe this... but even when I go one a histrionics binge, I can most always step back and admit when I am wrong... and/or back off, let things cool down and give a person a deserved "second chance". The fact that you don't get any such consideration shows how completely reproachable and over-the-top I consider your behavior to be. You blew it, man, big time. --WanYao 16:26, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Ok... but you know what? Nope, I'm not changing my mind. And, nope, I am not just going to shut my mouth, don't expect that by any means. However, the whole wiki (or those that care) know how I feel about you, cyberbob... So I will back off. Yeah. --WanYao 16:31, 18 July 2009 (BST)

(in response to your first post)I know I screwed up really badly, but there's literally nothing else I can do apart from work to make sure it never happens again. I think I deserve a second chance - I really do. I know you don't believe me on this one but my motivation in making those cases and whatnot was seriously not in bad faith. That is the honest truth. --Cyberbob 16:37, 18 July 2009 (BST)

(in response to your second post; I got edit conflicted as well)Well I never wanted you to "shut your mouth", but I did hope that you might have been able to see some way in which I could have redeemed myself. Obviously I was wrong on that count; will you at least agree to tone down the causticness a bit? I know how hypocritical it is to ask this of you but I've realised that tit-for-tat doesn't get anybody anywhere. --Cyberbob 16:37, 18 July 2009 (BST)

No, it doesn't. 'Nuff said. --WanYao 16:39, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Er, was that a yes or a no? Looks like a yes but it's nearly 2am here so I could be wrong --Cyberbob 16:40, 18 July 2009 (BST)

siiiiigh --WanYao 18:43, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Guessing it was a yes after all? :p --Cyberbob 18:51, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Enough... if you can't read plain English, that's not my problem. I allowed this communication to take place, in spite of earlier requests for you to stay off my Talk page, because it was necessary. Well, we're finished now, and I want you off my Talk page again, please. Thanks. --WanYao 19:00, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Your policy

If you make it like the current sysop nominations, then that would circumvent the vote argument, as the current sysop nominations is not a vote. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:36, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I agree. --WanYao 00:38, 21 July 2009 (BST)

That won't stop people from making that argument when voting comes around, however. You'll need to clearly indicate why this is needed, cite examples of the current system failing, and not only explain why this is not a vote, but how it works. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:41, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Doesn't that completely destroy the ideal of getting rid of self-policing? If it comes down to the sysops anyway, then what's the point? And if you mean using the vouch system, then isn't that essentially another way of voting?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:34, 21 July 2009 (BST)

---

Wan Yao old boy! How the hell have you been? I've hopped back on the ol' UD train, so I thought I'd give you a holler, since we've always been BFF's! Anywho, come say hi in the spicer hills area if you feel so moved. Sorry if I did this wrong, it's been roughly a year since I last logged.Pizzaboy Sean 20:40, 15 July 2009 (BST)