User talk:Aichon

Aichon:Talk

• Main
• Characters
• Sandbox

• Talk
• Userscripts
• Other

Aichon

ˈīˌkän :Talk

Announcement: I'm no longer active. My talk page is still your best bet to get in touch. —Aichon— 04:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware of the following guidelines before posting here.

• New conversations should be started at the bottom using a level two header (e.g. ==Header==).
• I like to keep conversations wherever they start, but if a conversation ends up here, I will keep it here.
• I will format comments for stylistic reasons, delete comments for whatever reason, and generally do anything else within reason.

Thanks. —Aichon—

Archives: 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | To do

Anticlimax

Watching Special:Statistics after a sig change isn't as exciting as you made it seem. I want my $7 back. ~ _{01:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)}

Wait wait are the sig image size rules gone? 04:06, 1 April 2013 (BST)

Not last I checked. I reverted his change, since I can only assume it was an accident. —Aichon— 04:17, 1 April 2013 (BST)

Damn. Was gonna go buck daft there. 04:29, 1 April 2013 (BST)

Hmm. That's weird. Looks fine on my end. Let me try again. ~ _{04:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)}

The issue is that the new image was huge, so it made your sig take up something like 400px. Fix that and it'll be fine, but I don't need to be seeing gigantic images for sigs all over pages. :P —Aichon— 04:32, 1 April 2013 (BST)

Annnnd, still doing it. Change your sig if you want to use that image, maybe? Enforce a size limit on it. —Aichon— 04:33, 1 April 2013 (BST)

Try clearing your cache, maybe? ~ _{04:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)}

Huge rabbit is huge still. It's not a cache issue, since it should be showing up that large, given that the image itself is that large and you aren't setting it to show up smaller anywhere. —Aichon— 04:36, 1 April 2013 (BST)

No I'm pretty sure its a chaching issue. ~ _{04:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)}

You're right. When I closed out my browser completely, I'm unable to see the images at all (I just see my desktop image on my computer!). Must be a caching issue. —Aichon— 04:42, 1 April 2013 (BST)

It looks like a tiny bunny to me, well within sig limits. Are you sure it is not on your end? -MHSstaff 04:49, 1 April 2013 (BST)

I think you broke it Aichon. Now it is like a million pixels large or something. -MHSstaff 04:55, 1 April 2013 (BST)

I'm sure it's me. After all, I reverted everything to how it was a few hours ago, and it's been broken for years... ¬_¬ —Aichon— 04:59, 1 April 2013 (BST)

I think I finally fixed it. How's this? 05:00, 1 April 2013 (BST)

*sigh* —Aichon— 05:02, 1 April 2013 (BST)

Looks fine on my end. The large images were messing everything up. Thanks for fixing it. -MHSstaff 05:04, 1 April 2013 (BST)

I'd like your opinion...

I'm putting this on your page because I'd love your opinion. I'm daring to do this publicly because I'd like to see what other folks think too - but I'm hoping for thoughtful, non-dismissive answers. I tend to see the official channels as rife with that brand of contribution.

So, something Kirsty said on her SysOp 'application' made me think about how well the wiki is tied to the game, and it made me remember that for a decent period of time way back when I first started that I didn't get it at all, what was here, how the meta game worked, and even that there was more than "What the percentage likelihood to find a genny in a mall hardware store is..."

That, and as I came back last fall, I was amazed at how balkanized everything had become. How in order to figure out what's going on at the moment, I visit 10 or so group forums every day, FAR AWAY from what is really supposed to be the centralized resource for information about the game.

It occurs to me that maybe the front page is due for a revision? Something that has a slightly more sexy and comprehensible GUI? go HERE for group information, go HERE for guides of all kinds, go HERE for gameplay information, a what's happening that actually corresponds to shit happening in the game? "The MOB's eating West Grayside. The Philosophe Knights continue to hunt Team Zombie Hardcore. The Late Night TV Crue are killing all the SysOps they can find... Axe Hack is making another obvious alt and trying to get into groups undetected... etc.?

That - and I'm not sure this is even possible now that Kevan's ditched - but maybe the log-in screen of the game itself needs a box touting the wiki a bit more, rather than just a button saying 'wiki'? "HEY YOU! There's another whole component of this game that goes way beyond what you see when you log your guy in! Go to the wiki to find a group, to read about coordinated stuff people are doing, yadda yadda?" Something that drives traffic here, where they'll find something simple and comprehensible, and then get sucked in the way I was to the human side of this and at just how amazingly clever people can be in this game?"

Further, then maybe there needs to be a campaign that asks active groups to at least update their pages with some kind of 'recent activity' once a month? So it's not necessary to go to all those forums?

I'm probably dreaming, and my specific ideas might suck for a host of great reasons - but overall, aren't there things we might try to reverse the slow decline here?

Thanks for listening.-- 15:54, 5 April 2013 (BST)

I definitely agree that the main page needs a redesign, and focusing around the sort of stuff that you're talking about would be a great idea. It's actually a topic that we've talked about quite a bit and that pretty much everyone agrees is necessary. Unfortunately, no one has put together a mockup for a new design that A) we can all agree on, and B) that will actually function correctly. I put together something a few months back that we all pretty much agreed would be a step up from what we have now, but we discovered at the last minute that the menu bar across the top is broken for everyone using the default theme, ever since the last wiki software somehow broke the way that the CSS is included in themes.

As for the login screen, that's out of our control entirely, I'm afraid. And regarding having more in-game updates on the main page, I'm actually in agreement that stuff like that would be useful, but the problem is that it (as you might imagine) gets extremely sticky when you start to give preferential treatment to groups just because they're more well-known or whatever than other groups. With various groups being inactive and active, oftentimes from one week to the next, it's almost impossible to keep updated, and that's assuming that the groups even want their whereabouts on the front page at all. That said, I think that I'd actually be in favor of having a box with extremely short (<10 words, say) status updates from any groups that show up on the stats page and that get deleted automatically after a month or something. We need to get over ourselves and start doing what's best for the community-at-large that isn't a part of the wiki community, which is something we've had problems doing. —Aichon— 18:36, 5 April 2013 (BST)

A snapshot of stats to put on the main page would be pretty sweet. It could be bot updated or, lacking that gnome'd weekly or so. I'll make myself available for main page reboot discussion if it resurfaces. Not sure if we'll get the css/theme problems fixed. Has anyone ping'd Kevan about that? Maybe there's a testbed wiki somewhere that stuff can be worked out and give a step-by-step method of fixing those issues. ~ _{18:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)}

Afraid not on that last point. Something outright broke, so without having a copy of this wiki that we could attempt to fix, I'm not sure how we'd be able to use a second wiki to help us here. And I'm not sure that anyone has pinged him, though I kinda doubt he'd respond even if we did on a topic like this. Anyway, I'm game for reopening these discussions as well with some ideas that are a bigger departure from what we currently have. One of the complaints with my design was that it didn't have something on the left side to visually balance out the right, but status updates from groups in a box down the left side could do just that for it. —Aichon— 19:09, 5 April 2013 (BST)

The discussions Aichon mentions are here and here, and the technical issues with Aichon's proposal are discussed here. They're an interesting read and give a good idea of why nothing happened last time this topic came up despite largely having consensus. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:09, 5 April 2013 (BST)

Perhaps a help group for new groups could be formed, similar to Project Welcome. Something to help the numerous Crit 2 group pages blossom into nice group pages and maybe an introduction to metagaming. Or just a collection of resources for new folks trying to form groups. I know there are some guides out there but it could be that they're being passed over/not seen. ~ _{19:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)}

Wow! Of course you guys have worked on this. I want to read up on everything Bob posted, then I'll come back. Thanks!-- 21:59, 5 April 2013 (BST)

If you guys are worried about preferential group treatment for in-game updates on the wiki, you can always word it to be anonymous. "A mob of zombies ransacked Caiger Mall last night", or something like that. Little, quick, sentence-long news blurbs on the main page, so to speak. (People who really know what's going would probably still know what and who the updates pertain to, though.) It might also be worthwhile to have some sort of centralized active group page, if you wanting to quickly know what groups are up to. I don't know. Also, we could give the CP something to do. But I'm not sure that we'd ever use it much, without really needing to. And one more also... I do have ideas for another main page, although I don't have the time to create anything right now. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:25, 6 April 2013 (BST)

This is mostly what makes people not want to update or read these things. It's better to have flavor, just no recruiting or falsification. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:30, 6 April 2013 (BST)

Is there any chance we could have a "first day on the wiki" guide like the one for the game on the main page? Maybe divided into a sections for game information and wiki information, just make it links to useful information and brief descriptions of what you'll find. I don't know if that would help the main page, but it would help me. --_K 22:36, 6 April 2013 (BST)

Hmmmm... I'll see if I can mock something up. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:21, 6 April 2013 (BST)

If you do, I got some thoughts on content, just not sure how to go about making a public discussion type page or if it even should be on the front end... --_K 02:23, 7 April 2013 (BST)

Whip together some text. Even if you don't pretty it up, if you put down some ideas for the text that are useful, we can run with those. Coming up with useful stuff to put on the front page was a major problem before. —Aichon— 05:46, 7 April 2013 (BST)

There was a time not long ago where we tried to redesign the main page. All that happened was nothing got changed, except the community sections you seem to value (and I worked prettye hard to put on the main page) being pushed further down the screen where no one would read them. Merry Christmas A ZOMBIE ANT 14:01, 7 April 2013 (BST)

A Question

Is Sexualharrison allowed to vote kill on my suggestion because "fuck you"? Lpha 15:25, 6 April 2013 (BST)

Suggestion votes need only justification, and even that is often waived as justification is easy to produce. There is effectively no check for the validity of the justification, as a.) sys-ops are not moderators and b.) civility is no requirement on UDWiki (such a policy has been shot down). tl;dr: Yes, Harrison is allowed to. -- Spiderzed█ 16:17, 6 April 2013 (BST)

There's actually the inane/invalid vote clause, if you look under voting rules. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:10, 6 April 2013 (BST)

Yes, and it states: Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote. "Because fuck you" may be poor form, but is some sort of reasoning/justification and thus formally sufficient. -- Spiderzed█ 17:19, 6 April 2013 (BST)

You have to look down a little further. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:35, 6 April 2013 (BST)

Is this regarding the "inane vote removed" example? Because, while possibly rude, Harrison's vote isn't "inane" - it was caused by a conversation on his talk page. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:17, 6 April 2013 (BST)

Am I mistaken or are suggestions at this point exercises in futility because Kevan's not updating the game?-- 21:25, 6 April 2013 (BST)

You're not mistaken. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:22, 6 April 2013 (BST)

I kind of view the suggestions system as a mini-game or side quest or something. Its fun for some. Some take it way more seriously than they should and others (like me) completely just completely ignore it. ~ _{23:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)}

finally some drama. and where is SA when I need him? i think i stole that one from him. --User:Sexualharrison00:56, 7 April 2013

Allowed to? Sure. Is it valid? Honestly, I don't know, and I wasn't planning to try and sort it out unless it would actually make a difference in the outcome of the vote. Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the troll vote clause in the Suggestions' rules, since that's a sysop power that applies in this case, and it allows sysops to act as moderators in situations such as these, which is extremely odd. Of course, that rule hasn't been used in years, and with good reason. —Aichon— 05:45, 7 April 2013 (BST)

Answer: No, he can't. But nothing will happen unless a sysop strikes it, which they most likely won't. (also: the rules say sysops can strike troll votes, the word inane isn't codified in the rules anywhere, only the suggestion). A ZOMBIE ANT 14:05, 7 April 2013 (BST)

You'd be suprised how unproblematic this was when I used it, or other sysops, even a Vista, even a direct precedent (if one cares about precedents here). I even got away with it on Iscariot (although I think there was an associated vandal case). You have people who don't care about their vote, who get their vote struck; thus they don't care and there wasn't any problem. (Exception, Iscariot. But Iscariot is Iscariot.) Any molehills here aren't mountains. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 14:32, 7 April 2013 (BST)

Yep, pretty much. Get some teeth, ops! A ZOMBIE ANT 08:28, 8 April 2013 (BST)

ah more arm chair syoping. too bad you have no say whatsoever anymore. aww.--User:Sexualharrison08:31, 8 April 2013

Just looking to watch more drama bud, as you wanted yourself. don't get all shitty with me busta A ZOMBIE ANT 15:11, 8 April 2013 (BST)

but I love pooping all over your years of hard work here on UDWIKI fucknuts.--User:Sexualharrison12:51, 9 April 2013

If you'll notice, he did give a justification in his original vote, to wit: "Meh", which translates to "this is a bland and uninspiring suggestion, and I could either vote keep or kill, so don't give me any shit about my vote, or it may change".
Or were those just the voices in my head? -- boxy 10:32, 8 April 2013 (BST)

which was my point exactly.--User:Sexualharrison15:01, 8 April 2013

--User:Sexualharrison16:24, 8 April 2013

In the end though, isn't the definition of "Troll" a society generated norm? A benchmark reliant on a moving target of zeitgeist? If I say that I find Sexualharrison's vote within bounds, appropriate and entertaining, am I not pulling the pole in the opposite direction of it being justifiably called a troll vote in our community? Assuming so, I found it within bounds, appropriate and entertaining.-- 20:18, 9 April 2013 (BST)

Wasn't talking to you

Was talking to the sysop team as an entity and anybody who backed both decisions i.e. Karek, Boxy, Rev, Spiderzed, Rosslessness, etc.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 03:27, 10 April 2013 (BST)

By the way, having looked at the list of current sysops, you are literally the only one who I actually trust to be reasonable. <3 --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 03:31, 10 April 2013 (BST)

...

I hope you can understand why I thought you were talking to me, since I was the one that voiced the "sysops are not moderators" reasoning which you seemed to be responding to. Even with having thought that, however, you're still cool in my book. —Aichon— 03:39, 10 April 2013 (BST)

Yeah, sorry, those were separate statements, apologies for the confusion. What I was getting at is that sysops aren't obliged to never moderate or be political, they should do whatever helps the wiki run most efficiently. In some cases, that requires moderating content. (I.e. to be an effective administrator it is also sometimes necessary to be a moderator.)--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 04:15, 10 April 2013 (BST)

No problem, and I can agree with that. If the need arises, sysops have a higher responsibility to do what's best for the wiki, even if it means overstepping their bounds and being taken to A/M. But moderating other users should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances that warrant such an activity, and should instead be left to the users themselves on a regular basis, particularly in the case of personal disputes, which are best resolved through dialog between the involved parties. When Lpha placed "Keep" before our votes without our permission, that was rightly excused as the newbie mistake it was. But his deciding to press the issue with Harrison and disregard what we told him about it being unnecessary, just so that he could see the Keep votes neatly lined up, created a problem entirely of his own making. Of course, a normal person, newbie or not, would either shrug it off or seek to address it with the other party, either of which would be acceptable outcomes.

Instead, rather than shrugging it off or talking with Harrison to resolve the issue he had created, his first resort was to ask me whether or not Harrison was breaking any rules. Who does that? And when he found out that there was a rule Harrison might be breaking, he went to another sysop and asked him to deal with Harrison. Newbie or not, it's poor form to drag others into a personal disagreement so that they can beat up your opponent, rather than dealing with it yourself, and even more so if you later try to pit those people against each other by bringing in another when the first one doesn't go along with your plan.

So, not only is he trying to use a rule that I believe should be erased (I'm not assigning him any fault for that since he couldn't have known; I'm simply explaining my reluctance to use it), he's also made himself extremely unsympathetic by demonstrating poor form and doing anything but being willing to handle the problem himself. Thus, even if I did support the use of the rule, I'd be unlikely to exercise my discretion in using it here, since I believe that he created the justification that Harrison is using and now has a responsibility to handle it himself. That has nothing to do with him being a newbie or folks looking out for a clique of long-timers. It's because he didn't act like a decent person should have acted (neither did SH, for that matter, but I'm not making any moves to support SH either, instead just choosing to let them sort it out among themselves). —Aichon— 06:44, 10 April 2013 (BST)

Fair enough, sounds reasonable.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:34, 10 April 2013 (BST)

I still can't believe all this crap over a meaningless suggestions vote. --User:Sexualharrison06:57, 10 April 2013

Would it be the wiki if it wasn't? Part of the charm of this place is its ability to crush souls under meaningless issues. —Aichon— 07:18, 10 April 2013 (BST)

really looking forward to what boxy has to say. think he will keep going down the line syops or get the hint?--User:Sexualharrison23:53, 10 April 2013

No clue at this point. He has quite awhile before the suggestion closes, so he could still go pretty far. —Aichon— 00:35, 11 April 2013 (BST)

Cycling Misfiled Suggestions

It is good that you have decided to stick around, as Kirsty's bid isn't something I'd want to be stuck with on my own for weeks. Clearly fails in significant activity as a criteria. Prior interest in maintaining the community has some efforts connected with it. Some users are against it based on these shortcomings, but we have also several serious vouches by established users. Thoughts? -- Spiderzed█ 01:54, 13 April 2013 (BST)

That actually factored into my decision to stay, since I didn't think it would be fair to stick you with this. As for my thoughts, my take on it is that while there are a decent number of vouches from members of the community, the general sentiment seems to be fairly ambivalent with quite a bit of incredulity being expressed. Some of that might have been exacerbated by the bid being posted on April 1st, which is unfortunate, but the end result is that I can't help but get the sense that promoting Kirsty now would be like picking a piece of fruit before it was ready. If Kirsty had a history of maintaining the wiki actively, I'd still go forward with the promotion in a heartbeat, but without that history, it's hard to say if this current activity is a phase or if it's a trend that will last. As such, I think that a, "Not right now" is in order, with an indication that he's on the right track and will almost certainly have it if he keeps doing what he's doing and tries again this summer. I sincerely mean that. —Aichon— 02:56, 13 April 2013 (BST)

In contested cases like this, I think "Not yet, this is what you can do to improve the odds" is indeed the right answer. As for the housework until the next bid, this is what I would give on the way:

• Ramp up contributions in order to remedy the significant activity problem.
• Ramp up janitorial work, like categorising images or tracking down scheduled deletions like missed talk pages, unused templates etc.
• Improve procedural knowledge. I'm not an op who is obsessed with precedent, but glaring mistakes like filing Misconduct against the whole team (which historically has always failed because no one was able to vote) are a thing that should be avoided.

Got anything to add? -- Spiderzed█ 16:33, 13 April 2013 (BST)

I actually want to chime in with few things of note.

• We need to fill out the sysops team, we're down to 7, one of which is asking for a demotion, one of which was recently refused a demotion, and two of which don't really do any sysop functions. That effectively leaves us with a team of 3, 4 while Ross is still around.
• Kirsty has shown he/she is willing to voice an alternative view to most of the team and that is a positive thing as it furthers discussion.
• Vapor's seems to be the most weighty against, and it's unexplained. The others are laregely due not to a fault of the user's but due to them being unsure if Kirsty wasn't the job. 2 out of 4 actually with 1 being Harrison who doesn't like the user and 1 being Vapor who is unexplained.

Generally we'd call this bid a very good one for someone looking for promotion. When the worst thing we can say is we don't know if they really want to be sysop, well the bid itself answers that when it's self filed and we have enough venues available should Kirsty not actually want the position. We now have A/RE if Kirsty proves to be inactive, and the balance of the sysop team right now is weighty with experience so any potential damage is extremely limited. Don't refuse this on the basis of it being contested though, it's really not. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 18:20, 13 April 2013 (BST)

Officially, the number of sys-ops plays no role in the decision. Inofficially, I am aware of us running out of suitable candidates, which is why I look relatively favourable at this application - just 2 or 3 years ago, an applicant like Kirsty would likely have been instantly shot down. That being said, I still don't see Kirsty as being at the point where she is ready, nor do I see a clear-cut indication by the community in favour of the bid. (As for Harrison, he's running with Kirsty in CK and has been for a long time running with her in Cobra, so personal dislike is one of the last motives I would suspect behind the against.) -- Spiderzed█ 18:40, 13 April 2013 (BST)

There's a more clear cut consensus here than most of the sysops we've promoted have gotten and the team size needs most certainly should play a role in the decision when there's so few viable candidates. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 18:49, 13 April 2013 (BST)

I know that I'm not refusing on the basis that it's contested. As we all know, these candidacies are not determined by votes, so as I'm looking through the people that expressed opinions, I'm looking at the reasons they provided, and what I'm seeing is that while there is some support, it's not particularly strong except on the point that Kirsty has a unique opinion to offer. Since that's only one out of the many things we expect in a candidate, and I haven't personally seen evidence of proficiency in those other areas. I feel that the decision is an obvious one, and I'm actually surprised that you disagree.

As for needing more sysops, as Spider said, that doesn't play into the decision, but even if it did, I disagree quite a bit. As I've said elsewhere, I don't think the wiki needs many active sysops in order to function, and that's even more true today than when I wrote that a few years back (with no snark and no sarcasm, I'm actually curious why you think we need more). The idea that we should promote people first and ask questions later using A/RE or A/M is a poor rational to use, especially so when the candidate's strength is in helping with drama, which is something we've been having less and less of in recent years. And regarding the number of sysops we have, my demotion request was withdrawn prior to your posting here, and I don't plan to request one again until about the time that Kirsty will be ready for a promotion if he stays on track, meaning that everything should work out just fine by your measure. —Aichon— 19:01, 13 April 2013 (BST)

Just shoot him down now. Especially given his rather lackluster initial approach to his own bid, it would be interesting to see how he would deal with a rejection. If he keeps on going the way he's going now, he'll be fine in a month or two. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:15, 13 April 2013 (BST)

I actually see Karek's point about declining sysop numbers. While the wiki may not need a bunch of sysops, it does need a few to be active at any time. If there are only, say, 2-3 active sysops, it's very easy for the stars to align and all to have rl happenings at the same time, leaving the wiki not only defenseless but also causing delays in cycling, cleanup, etc., which is a big flag to new users that the wiki is in decline.

There are also certain governance mechanics which break down under a certain number of active sysops. I don't think I have to mention the looming decline in eligible and willing Bureaucrat candidates; but there's also the fact that if there are only a few active sysops, VB, misconduct, and other rulings can get more and more lopsided due to choices being made by fewer and fewer people. In my estimation, having around 7 sysops, with 3-4 active, is roughly a functional minimum for a wiki of this size, scope and activity level. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:37, 13 April 2013 (BST)

Let me restate: I agree that the wiki needs a certain number of sysops active. Where I disagree is that we should use that as a factor in our decision (at least for now, though that may change later in the wiki's future) and that it's actually a major concern at the moment. As with Bob, I agree that 3-4 active sysops is the sweet spot for a wiki with our current size and activity, and I'd say that we have six out of the seven current sysops actively contributing when drama comes up, and about 3-4 of them actively handling janitorial tasks as they come up. —Aichon— 19:47, 13 April 2013 (BST)

Ok, I see that. I would say that if sysop numbers/activity do decrease further later on, though, then it should become a factor at that point. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:49, 13 April 2013 (BST)

The issue you're describing goes beyond the current promotion candidate discussion. Fewer dedicated and active sysops is just a direct cause of a declining (meta)game and wiki community, there aren't any easy solutions to this. (editconf) --Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:51, 13 April 2013 (BST)