Put Your Comments Here

A/MR

We've gotten tons of requests for DHPD sub-page moves. Apparently a bunch of pages were made as sub-pages of the redirect instead of the group. I mention it here because odds are you know where most of them are or would be and where they would want them to go. --Karek^maps?! 12:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dunell Hills Defacement

Some jerk "Iggles" is vandalizing the NPOV 'A Breif History' on the Dunell Hills page written in uneasy collaboration between the the Dead, WanYao, and the DHPD; He keeps reverting my fixes and his grammar is horrible. Is there anything you can do? --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 22:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Permabanned Users

So it seems that members of the team are open to reviewing previous vandal banning cases in order to bring them up to date with this policy. Does this work for you? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 19:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

DHPD Pages on SD

I had heard stories about sheep huddling in the pens even after the gate is opened.... I'm disappointed to say the least, but not wholly surprised. Two words: shit storm You ready? --– Nubis ^NWO 02:15, 8 October 2008 (BST)

In my heart I will always hate like you're a real DHPDer! :) I'm very curious to see how things turn out.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:19, 8 October 2008 (BST)

WTF? LETTING THE CASE END LIKE THAT? SO ANTI-CLIMATIC! BAD, CONN! -- #99 ^DCC 06:08, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Uh, wow. I screen capped Grim's IPs by the way. I know they clear out eventually. You may want to make sure you have them also in case the ban doesn't stick. Thanks for saving the stuff at the bottom. It will be nice to read from time to time. If he was working on all these ideas to "fix" the wiki then why didn't they come out until now? --– Nubis ^NWO 01:17, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Just adding this under "my" header so we can keep the talk in the same place. I missed your message on the talk page of my manifesto. The wiki needs a bit of an overhaul, but to show any real progress you need to start "at the top" and change policies regarding the sysops first. You have to show that the changes aren't just for the regular users. I'd be interested in your input on the start of my "harassment" policy idea on that same page. I can't help but base it on the DHPD/SA issues and some other things going on. Hindsight and all that...--– Nubis ^NWO 20:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

UZM

Et u Connie? I would have thought the DHPD would be all for a zombie tracker? --Zeug 04:25, 23 September 2008 (BST)

So you think anyone who builds a data collection website on say zombies roaming the DMZ shouldn't be able to actually state any information about them on the Wiki? What about DHPD links to players configs in the execute on sight list? Or links to resens pk/zerg lists? Or any reference to any group on any page? Are they all now open to deletion? I'm just trying to understand the logic here, seems pretty simple to me. it's an open access portal to zombie information. What if it was made by beerhah.com as a survivor tool to track zombies? The major problem with the barhah.com and MoB sympathizers seem to be the connection with Extinction through me. --Zeug 11:43, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Yes I understand the links thing, but don't see how that warrants page deletion rather than an arbitration case under the wiki guidelines. Jorm has already duplicated the dispute there and if successful it would remove the links rather than delete what is obviously a community resource page. --Zeug 12:16, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Moderation/abuse policies

I see you were active in efforts to improve the community by instituting some sort of guidelines for discussion on the wiki. Is anything like this still in progress? There did seem to be support for it, albeit two years ago. I find some of the abusiveness found here completely contrary to the ideals of a collaborative environment. I get that people expect the freedom to say "fuck". But that doesn't mean that their anonymity should give them free license to be a complete asshole. It detracts from the community and certainly isn't helpful for newbies. Can something be done to deal with the most disruptive and antagonistic behavior, while not interfering with positive use of the wiki? --Zhani 19:58, 4 September 2008 (BST)

zhani, if this is about Talk:Suggestions ... it's YOU who is not being "collaborative". Numerous people who are VERY experienced and knowledgeable in this game have explained VERY constructively exactly why your idea is not a good one. People like karek and swiers, for example. However, you've refused to heed their advice and just cling to your thoroughly refuted, bad idea. In so doing it's YOU who has been "non-collaborative" and in so doing you've brought on the negative, flaming stuff yourself. The discussion was (Iscariot notwithstanding) quite constructive until you started acting like a whiney little brat. And in that context, I can kind of appreciate Iscariot's flaming... And now you're whining to Conn? Sheeesh. Smarten up... And, Conn, please excuse me for butting in here on your Talk page; however, I kind of thought that a contexualising comment and response (of sorts) was appropriate. Hey, I know you don't like me much, so this probably hurts my cause more than helps it, anyway... ;P --WanYao 22:18, 4 September 2008 (BST)

WanYao:

This isn't about my suggestion at all. I have answered karek's comments, and will gladly take any constructive criticism into consideration as I revise my idea. Swiers didn't even post in regard to my suggestion, but countered your criticism. Your assertions that it is "bad" or "refuted" are simply your unsupported opinions. Your criticism has been off-base and not directed to the specifics of my concept. For each of the valid criticisms brought up, I have explained my reasoning. I contend that it's your behavior that is markedly childish.
This isn't whining, I'm entirely unstirred by the actions of trolls such as yourself and Iscariot. Trying to browbeat others into submission by being rude and aggressive doesn't tend to work on me. I do however recognize how negative it can be for a community, especially for a collaborative environment like a wiki. I believe the current attitude of completely ignoring uncivil behavior with the excuse of being anti-censorship is unsupportable. Wikipedia does not censor, but has policies such as Etiquette and Don't Bite the Newbies to keep the community friendly, civil, and productive.
I submitted a previous idea, there were good arguments against it, and so I abandoned it. However, even before I did that, I recognized what a cesspool of biased and dogmatic opinion the suggestion area is, how burdened it is by agendas to maintain particular aspects of the game regardless of potential for improvement, and how those who have certain biases have no compunction about trying to drive off those with different ideas by personally antagonizing them, rather than addressing the idea itself. Contrary to your stated opinion, people do not "deserve flaming" simply for submitting an idea you don't like. That suggesting something garners such a response shows how broken the system is, and how there is a need to establish policies to determine what is acceptable or not.
I have seen in previous discussions of advocating for moderation guidelines or policies supporting civil behavior on this wiki that opponents assert that Kevan created this space for us and we are to "police ourselves". Well, how else are we to accomplish that, other than by agreeing to what is acceptable? There may be a contingent, even a large one, that gets glee out of showing off how offensive they can be, and getting ego-satisfaction out of belittling and harassing others. The sysops appear to turn a blind eye to this, since so long as it isn't actual vandalism of the wiki, they don't want to get involved.
Do players of this game want to see more players? Do they want people to stick around? Do they want people voluntarily putting in time to maintain and improve the wiki? I hope so. That seems to be part of the goal of having a wiki. And so behaviors that discourage new players or drive them off, or make people give up on contributing to the wiki, are demonstrably harmful to the intent of having it in the first place. Unless the desire is to keep it the exclusive domain of a like-minded group that is hostile to anyone who doesn't appreciate or agree with their behavior.

So my bringing this up with Conndraka is not related to my own suggestions, but a result of seeing how anyone who submits a suggestion or dares propose something that doesn't fit the particular vision of the subset of the playerbase is treated with aggressive disrespect and contempt. Rather than see it go unaddressed, I would like to see if there is still support at all levels of the community to do something about it. I'm sure you find that idea threatening, since if such policies were brought in, you might be limited in your ability to lash out anonymously at people for the simple gall of saying something you disagree with. But if you are unable to discuss a game, something people do for entertainment, without such contempt and disregard for others, then I suggest it is you who has much growing up to do.

--Zhani 23:01, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Responded to... 23:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)

I have been VERY vocally speaking out in recent months against blatant trolling. And actually getting in a lot of shit over it. Because my idea is very simple: blatant serial trolling is vandalism. Period. And there is a big difference between someone simply being rude and insulting vs. trolling. The difference is almost always very clear, and when it's not, that is why there is discussion and voting on vandalism cases. Meanwhile, my method doesn't actually squelch people from expressing themselves, even in ways that may be offensive to some. But the Admin team won't even take this stance... And I do agree that blatant, serial trolling is destroying this wiki. Two things will destroy this game, and are destroying it: zerging and serial wiki trolls...

That being said, however, this is not some hippie love-in. Just like in the real world, people are not always going to be nice to you. Deal with it. But put in place a system that addresses and gets ride of the people who are doing serious damage to the community, i.e. the serial trolls. But, much like the real world, other than dealing with the extreme cases which are bona fide dangerous, I am not in favour of "legislating morality" or censoring people to the degree that you seem to want to. I don't think it'd be workable anyway... Brainstock is the perfect example of why this approach does not work. Supposedly, trolling isn't tolerated. Yet, ironically, it's the trolls rule that place. And the moderators are trolls themselves, and they lay the ban hammer not on the trolls but on people who say things they don't wanna hear, or who question their self-serving abuse of mod powers... That's what you'll get here, if you try to legislate speech in any way other than dealing with the worst and most blatantly disruptive and non-constructive people. --WanYao 12:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)

As for you suggestion... I've argued my point there, but you just don't seem to be getting it. Tons of people have argued thier points, and your suggestion has come under heavy criticism, and is just not well-liked. And with good reason IMNSHO. You're perfectly free to disagree, more power to you, but, sheesh... your stubbornness and intransigence is most certainly not winning you allies. Furthermore, if you had any long-term experience with the kind of CRAP that comes on the suggestion page regularly, and the immature, pathetic behavior that the suggestors demonstrate when their ATROCIOUS ideas are shot down, you'd understand why no one "suffers fools gladly" on that page. --WanYao 12:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)

In any event, I've rambled on and on on your Talk page, Conn... :P But there is some relevancy to all this... While we may have some disagreements as to the best ways to deal with trolling... And some of us may disagree as to what is acceptable vs. unacceptable behavior... Meanwhile, while it might seem like I am echoing Grim's infamous stance on this issue, actually I don't think I go as far as him in the laissez-faire free speech thing... In any event, I think there is actually a broad agreement out there that the really bad serial trolling is a problem and ought to be addressed. So if this gets us a little closer to a solution, I think it's a good thing... Peace. --WanYao 00:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)

M/D Comment

First off I'd like to apologise for my comment in Deletions. I had just spent 3 hours on top of a roof applying tar and your comment more or less made my day.

Moving along though, exactly why are you so anti-DEM? I'm just wondering. First there was the CFT nonsense, and now you seem to be implying that we are Fascist.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 04:51, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Thank you!

Thank you for maintaining the Havercroft Alliance page for us, we later found out Ajester was a spy and not a good player. Thanks for keeping things honest and true friend. (St Aden) 02:14, 7 August 2008 (BST)

The Proof is in the Template

	Play on Names
	This user received a template with his likeness. Get it? Okay. I'll explain. A Draka is a monster from World of Warcraft. If they ever attacked, I'm sure that you would be totally against them and protect the helpless from them. Against the Drakas. Con. Draka. Conndraka. If you think that's a stretch, imagine what I'm going to have to do for Karloth Vois. Yeesh.

Hi - I'm a bored person, so I've been making templates. Oodles and oodles of templates. Play on Name templates. Yours was hard. If you don't play World of Warcraft, I'm not sure people will even get this one. Enjoy the template --Tselita 21:51, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Please go to http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Deletions and vote Keep so that the Grimch doesn't try to delete the template I made for you (and others). Thank you. --Tselita 13:04, 27 June 2008 (BST)

You got red on you

There is a broken (red) link in your sig. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 23:41, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Why is that link there? It just encourages people to create useless, off topic pages that have to be speedydeleted -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:59 24 July 2008 (BST)

Shame

Those sysops who put together the Grim witch hunt should find themselves ashamed for doing this. It's a bad day for this wiki. Just to note: I don't even like Grim. I like fairness, and this affair had very little, if any. --Stephen Colbert DFA 05:53, 9 October 2008 (BST)

ON LIMITED DUTY: Do Not Comment Below this Header

Thank you from the PK

Hey there, thanks for reverting the vandalism on the Philosophe Knights wiki page. We appriciate your vigilance. (My apologies if this is in the wrong place on your talk page) --User:VI/signature 16:37, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Blah

The Dead are going crazy. Seems they think they know everything, and can do anything. You may want to swing by the DHPD pages and the Dunell Hills talk page Cisisero 05:35, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Erm

Although I agree, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmkay, it's no biggie for me. Oh, and +1 :) -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Movie Trailer

i seem to remember something about a big skull, is that what your talking about? --Bullgod 14:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

hah, yeah. i couldn't help but be reminded of the mad max movies either. much of the bullgod persona comes from the Lord Humongous of the second movie and the speeches he would give, and this definitely reminded me of that. --Bullgod 14:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Channel 4 News Team

Thanks for protecting us from vandals, Conn! I just noticed that! Right on! Keep on rocking! --Ron Burgundy 03:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. . .

I think You've done it again, neither one of those returned a proxy when I checked them.--Karek^maps?! 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Copied From other parts of the wiki for archival reasons

Vandal Ruling(s)

User:JonnyFive

JonnyFive (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
For this edit. Accurate or not, Its up to a group member to do the editing. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 18:59, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - Good faith, it improved the accuracy of the paragraph. The edit was accurate to what the stats said at that time, and the paragraph was talking about the stats page, not about known members who may not have the exact words "Dunell Hills Police Department" in their profile. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:33, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - Read the reporting guidelines, please. "Avoid submitting reports which are petty." --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:03, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Allright. Its just that I thought that the fact that since the edit in question was not in the NPOV section and that Johny is a member of a group known to Grief the DHPD, that it was innapropriate. I assume this means that anyone can now edit any group page as long as the edit is accurate? Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 15:28, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Edit in the means of adding new info, no. Update already existing, yet outdated, information from a reliable source, yes. You could've prevented that by simply saying as of (day) of (month), the DHPD yada yada --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:37, 28 April 2008 (BST)

If the minor editing of the group page continues in a way that I think can be considered to be for annoyance value, then yeah, it may be ruled as vandalism... but not simply this -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:24 29 April 2008 (BST)

Final Rulings Re: Grim's Misconduct

Note: Original text is in italics, My personal responses are aditions. this in no way should be viewed as comming from Grim Directly and as the heading above says is a copy of material elswhere in its original format on the wiki. I did not feel it was appropriate to put the comments below in the regular space but choose to express myself here... To be honest i'd use the Quote function but I have neither the time nor know how at teh moment to do it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:06, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Final Rulings

Whereas Grim has been found guilty of misconduct by the sysop, and whereas (by a vote of 3 to 2) the agreed on sanction is the removal of Grim as a bureaucrat of the UD Wiki. It should be noted that Grim shall remain a sysop at this time. Although it does appear that there is significant community support for a call of "no confidence" it is as of this time outside the bounds of this proceeding. This matter is to be referred to Kevan to administer as he sees so fit in the manner and a new bureaucrat promotion round be started immediately to fill the vacant position. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:46, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I absolutely refuse this verdict. Furthermore, i absolutely reject your authority to convict me in this blatant kangaroo court.

reject the existence of the on coming train all you want...I'm sure it gives you a feeling of power and control. But when that train hits you, you are still going to get run over.

It is time for a change.

Couldn't agree more. Whats Sad, I would have supported most of the "reforms" you propose below but you weren't willing to reach out for help from me, nor would you ever accept the possibility you were flat out wrong without having to be held down and hammered over the head with what YOU considered acceptable evidence.

This has been a long time coming. The sheer scale of corruption and bile on this wiki has finally crossed the final line and i refuse to stand idly by, fighting within the bounds of obviously flawed laws while those who run rampant abuse power to destroy everything i have worked to protect for the last three years.

Looks blankly back at grim* you were responsible for much of the vitriol that exists on this wiki, and your blatant refusal to accept that some behavior was wrong led you to take actions you decried from the bench, but was suddenly ok because YOU did them? Fuck that.

I am not a popular person. I have never held much faith in the idea that being loved makes you suitable for a job. I instead subscribe to the idea that a good person to have power is one who uses their power responsibly, for the betterment of the community as a while, rather than to further his or her own interests. It is this ideal that i have held in my mind as i hgave performed my tasks and duties on this wiki, and it has brought me nothing but stress and a near unending stream of bile from those whos excesses i have somewhat sicceeded in curbing in this last year or so.

Shit... I'll take your popularity over mine any day. the ONLY reason the misconduct trial proceeded the way it did was you stood behind your perceived authority, refused to admit your mistake graciously, and were not to mention FLAT OUT WRONG. And as far as bile... let ye reap what ye sows.

it has also come to my attention that my status as an impediment to their actions is now terminally threatened. So i have been forced to take desperate measures.

-snerk- moving on...

Effective immediately i am seizing executive power over this wiki. All system operators and bureaucrats, save myself and asministrational accounts by Kevan and Leakybocks have been demoted. Over the next few days new rules and systems will be implimented to curb the power of individuals, and deal with the scum that clogs this place. I apologise for the means for enacting change, and the shocking suddeness of the change, but it is the only way to initiate any true reforms on this otherwise stagnant swamp of bile.

I dont use this language much but...ROFLMAOUIPOAD say whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

I would also like to take this moment to announce my resignation as bureaucrat and sysop of this wiki and my permenant departure from this community. There is nothing left of what i used to love and, to be honest, i dont need the stress. This will come into effect some time in November, after these changes have been implimented and the system is working. I'm betting somewhat sooner than November. don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

I shall spell out the scope of the changes quickly, so they do not come as a suprise to you all. First, and most important of all, the wiki is going to be reorganised. Running a wiki as a community does not appear to be working. As such, we need to split the information pages away from community discussion areas. While this should already be happening here, the fact of the matter is that it just plain isnt working. At the very least, a different set of operating guidelines need to be emplaced. And may yet be...but not in some banana republic style coup implemented by you.

Secondly, and almost as important, a code of conduct shall be put in place. It will enable the moderators of this system to stamp out petty trolling and the like that has held sway here for far too long, or at the very least control it. It is my sincere hope that with such a measure in place, more users will start openly participating in the community instead of the two dozen or so who do now. This should also serve to reduce drama across the wiki.

Of all the... I agree, but damned if you hadn't help kill a large number of measures that would have resulted in what you wanted to do.

Thirdly: A control needs to be placed on the powers of system operators. Recent events have shown pretty clearly that system operators are completely incapable of policing themselves. As the sayings go, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" and "Who watches the watchmen?" Recent history has shown this to be the case with this wiki's sysops, with only a handful of exceptions. These individuals shall be reinstated at the appropriate time, other individuals who have shown their ability to make decisions shall also be appointed.

Yes.. reinstated minutes after your little fit, and new ones appointed? oh hell yes I'm all for that..especially now that we are a couple down thanks to you over the last several months.

Another measure that is to be implimented is seperating the system operators from misconduct proceedings. They should not be able to rule their actions not misconduct, or clique up. While no measures will ever be entirely effective. It is my hope that by adding another group of users which, for lack of a better word shall be termed moderators, this will be somewhat allieviated. Moderators would also be tasked with managing discourse and dealing with arbitration and mediation cases. They would not have any special abilities, as their tasks do not require them to have them.

Agreed, but damned if you had to go and blow your own head off before we managed to get a new battery for the hearing aid.

System operators shall remain as they are, though greatly lessened in power. They will retain the ability to ban people, delete/undelete pagee as well as protections and moves. They shall act as Janitors for the community, performing bans as deemed by the Moderators, and carrying out things such as deletions, protections and page moves as requested. They will have no authority whatsoever except in the information pages, where thier word is law (And expected to be for providing the best information possible while remaining NPOV).

but but but... where would power-hungry manipulative trolls like myself go for our measure of troll chow and boot licking? To be honest once again not a bad Idea but you chose blood and circuses over bread and honey.

Bureaucrats shall also be altered slightly in function to match that of a forum admin. They shall have great power, but use of such power will have a heavy cost. They do not have the authority to appoint new system operators or moderators as they see fit. A new promotions system will come into effect shortly that will explain much of this. A Bureaucrat also has what amounts to a reset button. He may, at any point in time, fire the entirity of the administration team. Doing so he sacrifices his status as a bureaucrat as well. At this point all positions are open for re-election according to the promotions system.

Ummmmmm no. not happening. to many possibilities for a suicidal ego maniacal megalomaniac to fuck up the pallete, although I couldn't imagine anyone ever being made a bureaucrat that might have those characteristics.

Arbitration will be split into Arbitration (Regarding edit disputes) and Mediation (Regarding personal ones). These will each have their limits as well.

Good Idea. nuff said. Could have been implemented as a sub-vote of the pages itself rather than a new policy implementation. 5 sysops on board with a couple of others from the community..done.

Vandal Banning will be used only to deal with actual vandalism of information pages. CoC violations shall be reported in another area.

no... Vandalism=vandalism deal with it regardless of sub-section of the wiki.

New guidelines shall be implimented as well to make things mesh properly.

Yes Im sure they will...but not by you. Good-bye.

Thank you for taking the time to rewad all this. Hopefully what comes next wont be as shocking anymore. I welcome all feedback, and suggestions for improvement of these coming ideas. I do not presume to know best, just better than the system we, until this moment, had enjoyed. No system will be perfect, but we can do a whole lot better than that corrupt and ineffectual system we had. --The Grimch

Couldn't help but read it....And I have to say...as far as corrupt? He who dealt it smelled it.

:FYI: I notified kevan of my intentions days ago. If he wants, he can feel free to toss me out on my arse.

And I think he did just that...

I dont care. But this system is beyond broken and needs to be fixed, so i ask that he wait a few days and see how it plays out. In either case, my resignation and departure from this community is final and will not change. --The Grimch

na na na naaaa na na na naaaaaaaa hey hey hey...Good bye. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:06, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Oh and by the way

To those who were watching the situation very carefully... you're welcome. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 23:24, 15 October 2008 (BST)

User talk:Conndraka

Contents