Forum:Mutual understanding

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Hi folks.

Considering recent events, my eyes have been opened to a lot. The whole time, I thought I knew what I was doing, but in reality I was just making matters worse. So, after a few words with a fellow user, I've come to a conclusion. It doesn't take a bureaucrat to bring the community together, it takes the community to work together towards a better goal. We can't expect one man to hold this Wiki up alone; so as an administrator, I will take it upon myself to help this community get back on track and get everyone involved, not just the prominent editors. Because remember, everyone here (even the anonymous users) deserve their say and should not be chastised for having their say freely.

So, I'm going to give a list of things I feel need to be worked on. And I want the whole community, be it anonymous users, admins, or just anyone who wants to put their say in to work alongside one another and tell us admins as leaders what we can do to make this place accessible for everyone. That means I want users like Emiko and Old World Relics who have told me that they feel left out to really get active and tell us what they want out of this. We need to come together as a community and figure out what needs to be done.

Issues

Administrator-Only votes

On certain votes, we've had "Administrator-only" voting rules. This is on issues such as Talk Page rules, or other concerns. Now, this is not good, people. Everyone has a say here, not just the people who "matter". Because everyone should matter. If there's an issue, we need all opinions on how to resolve it.

Anons can't vote

This isn't fair. Anons are no different to normal users, other than they don't have an account name or an avatar. Anons were allowed to vote once upon a time. Look at Gothemasticator's bureaucrat request; if Anons were allowed to vote then, they should be allowed to vote now. Just because they don't log in doesn't make their contributions any less valuable!

Forums regarding rules changes

For the most part, these are helpful. But when you drag on for ages about Talk Page archiving, is it really that important? The average user doesn't come here to learn about when they can or can't archive a talk page. We need to listen to the concerns of the common user and work on that, not just what the administrators are interested in.

Popularity votes

No more of these. I know it's something we can't work on, but when you vote for someone you need to vote because you think they're qualified, not because you like them. Please do not vote for someone based on preference! This goes for the other way around too - if you dislike someone, don't vote no because you're trying to upset them.

Bullying of votes

There have been occasions where, not naming names, some users have been bullied due to their vote. It happened on Limmiegirl's admin request and on other applications. Nobody should be made to feel bad or have their opinions ridiculed because they didn't go with everyone else. One user told me that he no longer wants to vote on anything because of his opinions being ill-received in the community.

Sysops/Known user privileges

This one should be obvious. If an admin goes to a blog, and typed "Fallout 3 sucks", then they often get away with it. If an anon goes to a blog and says the same thing, they'll be banned for flamebaiting. Now, come on. We can't be giving certain users more privileges based on their standing in the community. If you break a rule, you get punished regardless of who you are. Same goes for chat offences.

The Nemesisx: You're fine to argue your point, but don't go putting down the person you're debating with by saying things such as "Your argument is weak, futile, stupid" ect. That's not debating, that's just being a dick.

Public Forum

This is more an idea. What if we had a public forum of some kind where people can go to post their concerns, or things that they want to see changed? Some people are hesitant to tell us their ideas to help this Wiki because they're just a regular user. And some people don's even know where to go with their problems. Often lesser-known users are overlooked when they give an idea, but really, everyone's ideas are eligible regardless of who you are in this community.

81.107.208.186: Video Walkthroughs

I've gotten a message from Anonymous User 81.107.208.186. They ask if we can include video walkthroughs for quests or special items, because sometimes for the average person coming here, it's hard to follow the instructions we give. I agree that it would help to include video tutorials for certain things (like unique weapons/armour) and this is also something that can get some users to upload their self-made videos. Because not everyone is good at editing, but there are plenty of people who have Youtube accounts and they can help out. If we do choose to implement videos, then I think we'd need to write up guidelines for what can and cannot be in the video.

Comments

So, basically, those are some things I think can help heal the rift between well-known users and the common user. We need everyone to get involved in the changes happening, not just the admins. I no longer want to see people feel scared to speak up or get ignored because they're not well known. Give me your thoughts on this and PLEASE add some of your own ideas, so that hopefully we can work towards a better Wiki. 02:09, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think there needs to be a somewhat significant change. I've spoken to several users that feel the same way. I agree with Gunny on the Anon Voting. They have rights here as well, but we must ensure that they are here for the community, and get to know us better before just stuffing the ballot box. I think they should have an account with an avi and everything, and get settled into the community before voting. That being said, I'm unsure what to think. I've heard that B-Crats have overturned entire community votes with one word, even though the entire community was for it, just because the B-Crat was against it, it didn't pass. I'm not too sure, and as I've said, I spend the multitude of my time on the chat here. I would like to get better at editing, however my trivial knowledge of the series has kinda gone down the tube the past few months. I think there are a lot of users that feel they are steamrolled by the rest of the community when it comes to speaking their opinions, and that needs to change. I've also heard that there were users that refused to vote. They said they refused to vote, because they feared once again being steamrolled by everyone else for not having a "status quo" opinion on the matter. That being said, I'm not too sure what to say. But we need changes, and we need them quickly. User:RamboRob196

Rob, going to have a chat to you about this, but on the editing but I have an idea that can help both new users settle in, and get those who want to edit up. Basically a mentoring programme. User who self identify as wanting to do more, but don't know how/where to start or users who are making a lot of edits which are reverted can be pointed to a mentoring club to help that person get their edit quality and confidence up. I'll post more on this later. Agent c 19:31, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Chad, this is the best damn idea I've heard in a while here. I would be more than happy to take my meager editing skills and be a wiki "Big Brother". Sign me on the list when you make the post. Wait, I'll do even better: Anyone reading this that needs tutoring, just grab me in chat or message me. The Gunny 19:41, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I'm talking about. Do people think this needs a vote, or should we just get started?

Since this isn't a policy or rule change, or anything that would be mandatory, there's no need for a vote. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 21:48, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Last one first Yessie, we have that, you're posting in it. ;-) Agent c 02:11, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that your last idea is already being experimented on by me with my ANB. :P ^Skål! 02:13, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

With the Syspos one, i need to throw in some of my two cents there. I belive that if a flame war breaks out and an admin, user or anon is involved in it and becomes getting nasty then they should obviously face the consequences BUT we allready know this. What i want is if an admin debates the issue and gets nasty within the debate then they MUST not be allowed to get away with it, ive noticed some admins (not nameing names) get a bit aggressive in arguments and then turn around and say we don't have to "Sugar coat" everything. Sorry but in the end of the day if your seen as being nasty towards that user then you are in violation of a rule, things like these are NOT tolerated upon any other site, wikia or anywhere else, your fine to argue your point but don't go putting down the person your debating with by saying things such as "Your argument is weak, futile, stupid, ect" thats not debating, thats just being a dick. You respect the other's point and then rebutle, of course now that ive typed this up i can see a huge thread emerging and thus my view becomeing one of a massive debate lol.TheNemesisx 02:23, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good addition to the rules.

"We are all free to state our opinions, but only in a respectful manner."

This is great, I'm adding it above. 02:29, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Anons not voting. I think this has to stay, to ensure the integrity of the vote. I think you should be required to have an account, and a token edit somewhere on the wiki (dated prior to the vote) to be a valid voter, including user and talk pages. Its not exactly a high hurdle, and it helps ensure a clean vote with as limited ballot stuffing as possible- that should be the only restriction, no admin only votes. Agent c 02:27, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't want to constantly be hopping onto WIMIP checking for proxy IPs... ^Message 02:30, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Put me down for another no anon on votes. They deserve all the other rights, but in order to ensure there's no "ballot stuffing" we've got to have some system of voter registration. Having an account does that. As for special forums for causes and gripes, we've got all the server space we need on these forums right here. I don't think we need a special one. The folks who don't know how to start a forum here won't know where to look for or how to add to one that's already built for them. They will do what they've always done, leave a message with an admin. The admin can always bring the issue to the forums. The Gunny 03:04, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this one. Having anons vote will completely screw up the system and bring up more issues with votes and abuse than ever before. Making an account and one edit on that account is not hard at all. -ΣΔ^{Let's talk!} 20:19, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I like the thought on the popularity vote. If I ever run for admin,which I doubt, I want people to vote for me because they think I deserve it. I know the only reason I got my Mod spot is because of my halfway decent popularity in the community. Which I was fine with at the time. I don't want to sound hypocritical by saying no more popularity votes because mine was a popularity contest which today I regret applying for because now I feel like I didn't deserve it at the time. Sometimes I still do feel like I don't deserve it but that's not the reason why I'm posting this. Though there will never be a vote that won't have popularity involved it would be nice if popularity wasn't taken into account straight off the bat.

I don't think anons should vote either though they may have in the past, but all anons can't be trusted. There are a few out there who can be trusted, but I think they should at least have an account.

Admins, shouldn't have a free pass either when it comes to insults and such for not agreeing with someone or is a debate and should be handled in a appropriate manner. ToCxHawK 03:01, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I've seen users banned because they offered a personal opinion that they thought one game was better than another. The admin gave them 3 more posts to defend their OPINION and when the user didn't they were banned. That kind of abuse has absolutely no place here. The Gunny 03:08, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that has no place here and nobody should get a free pass. Not even the most respected admin/person. ToCxHawK 03:11, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that angered me alot, it was main reason why i would not want to come back to this wikia at times.TheNemesisx 03:16, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I think this is something the proposed chat manager can help with Agent c 03:17, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Point by point address

Administrator-Only votes
That was quickly corrected, and there haven't been a repeat since. So honestly I don't know why dig this up again as an issue.

This is a community, that everyone has their own right as a part of a collective wiki. ^{"Let's talk."}

Anons can't vote
To be blunt, this is absurd. First, the potential for abuse (sockpuppeting for instance) is enormous. Secondly, anons aren't accountable. They have no reputation, specially if they have dynamic IP. So essentially they have nothing to lose, which is also why so much of the time vandalism/spam is done by anons. Lastly, they're not committed. I'm aware of exceptions, but as a rule they're anons because they couldn't even be bothered to register.
In short, treating anons like they're dirty is wrong, but giving them a right to vote is ridiculous. There's a line between being inclusive and being populist, and this crosses that line by miles.

Forums regarding rules changes
I really don't know what is being proposed here. Stopping discussions about rule changes?

Popularity votes
I agree.

Bullying of votes
Nobody was bullied for they votes in my request. Saint Pain was merely asked to elaborate on why he thought there were too many admins, which is perfectly reasonable in a discussion. He only later received flack for trowing insults, unbacked accusations, and being a coward. And I say coward completely unapologeticly here. He was a coward because when asked to provide evidence to back up his insults and accusations, he hid behind his usual vague pseudo-deep ramblings and didn't back up anything he said.

Sysops/Known user privileges
I agree.

Public Forum
We already do have those. If there are users who don't know how to use the ones we already have, creating another isn't going to help. If anything, the redundancy is going to make things more complicated, not simpler.

Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 04:20, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we can all agree that Sysops can'y get away with flamebaiting. 04:24, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

If this is a passive-aggressive way of calling my statement about SP flamebating, it wasn't. It wasn't because I backed up arguments, and I'm available to elaborate them if necessary. I'm not one to say things by half, nor to leave half-said things be. You brought up my request, so I will address it. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 04:40, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Wait, I'm confused. I wasn't referring to anyone, I'm just saying I'm glad that people agree sysops can't get away with flamebaiting. I don't know what you were implying, Limmie :( 04:47, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

In that case it seems I misunderstood you. Please take my sincere apologies. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 04:53, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologise; it was an honest mistake ;) 04:56, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I think Limmie just summed up my thoughts quite nicely. I honestly feel like this wiki has been improving ever since we got back on our feet after the split and I'm not sure why certain users feel like we need to fix what isn't broken. To be honest, the only thing causing problems around here lately are users who don't know what they're doing and they can't be bothered to express themselves properly or read through our guidelines/policies. An example: The talk-page policy? Started when a user deleted his talk-page for obvious reasons and raised a bitch-fit when we reverted it. As for those users who feel as if they can't have their voices heard... have they really even tried? The only users I see ever complaining about that are newer users who tend to stick with chat. Do I ever see them going to a mod or Admin and asking questions and genuinely expressing their concerns? No, not at all. Instead, they complain to other users and act like it's the leaderships fault that they're having problems. So the way I see it, they're the problem; not us. ^Skål! 04:31, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

The users Yes-Man is quoting did go to an admin. In chat. Yes-Man. And I'm terribly sorry to hear you say "they're the problem; not us". The Gunny 04:38, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

The users YM mentioned were also properly advised, by myself and others, and I have chat logs to prove it. If the help was unsatisfactory, they certainly didn't tell it to me, which is what they should have done if that were the case. I'd be glad to continuing helping as long as necessary, but nobody can be expected to know they want help if they can't ask for it. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 04:43, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Limmie, you must have read something into my remark. I was simply answering Leon's question. He said he had never seen them go to a mod or admin to express concerns. I thought it was obvious that they had. It had nothing to do with the merits of their concerns or the quality or quantity of counseling they received. Did I erroneously imply that? I meant no to. The Gunny 04:54, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I see, yes, it seemed to me like you were vouching for the validity of the claims, but if you were merely stating that they did ask, then nevermind. :) Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 05:16, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Those are two minor examples. One of them not even a good one since I've personally seen him slandering the leadership and trying to talk certain users into taking over. Maybe I should have written that differently though to not sound like I believe this is a 100% case scenario. I stand by my opinion though. Everything could have gone perfectly well around here, except we keep getting certain users to rile everything up. First, we had a couple users when we were coming up with a new logo that decided to make the whole idea into a mess which resulted in Clyde having to step in and take over. Second is the example I listed above which led to the whole mess involving the talk-page policies. Now we have users who never even touch the edit button complaining in chat about how things are run here and now we're starting to debate whether we should re-vamp this wiki for the needs of the few when it's not even necessary. I'm sorry to say, but it's not that hard to find out how to do things here. We the Admins would love to help anybody out with their problems and it's not our faults if they're to afraid to speak up for themselves and that's their problem, not ours. It's not like we make a habit of telling people they can't ask questions. In fact, I doubt anybody could provide me with any evidence supporting that any of us has ever done such a thing. ^Skål! 04:52, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

• @Gunny: I would like to point out that I was talking about actual users who complain and never go to anybody for help. I think it's kind of strange to counter my points with an example of users who don't even fit the description of what I was talking about. Of course users who don't complain and ask for help aren't the problem. That's not what I'm concerned with. ^Skål! 05:02, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Well, see, that's the problem. People are hesitant to speak up. But they shouldn't be. If we give people more opportunities to speak up, and not just the admins or the well-known users, then we can help everyone to get more active in the community. Because lately it seems to me like only the admins or the big editors are having their opinions heard, and we admins can hardly speak for everyone. 04:59, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

My main concern is when they don't even try in the first place. I can understand trying to make newer users more aware of where they can go for help though. That's the whole reason why we have the welcome message and I even created the Noticeboard and put it somewhere that's easy to find by any user. I'm only hoping the Noticeboard can actually be of use to at least a few users. Seems like no one is interested in it yet though. I even got a no vote in the feedback section without an explanation for why. Not very helpful. ^Skål! 05:05, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

i know ive not been here for too to long, and most people don't know me well (which i understand), and really ive been quiet about it, being to worried of getting hated on for it (another issue ive seen) and really im not all that involved in allot of the debates as im to neutral and shy to really have much say..but, the things that bug me are when i DO try to put in my 2 cents, its completely ignored and pushed aside, and looking into it more its no just me, its most common users, this urks me quite abit, as it makes us (or at least me) feel unimportant, and afraid to comment in the future, so if anything changes here, id say that should be the top one, common users are important too, and they deserve to feel like it, that goes for voting, debates, blogs ,and everything, and though we do need them to balance the community, 'admin' IS just a title, and though they are needed to be favored over in some situations, allot of others they aren't needed to be, they shouldn't have the upper hand in a debate or argument just because they've been around longer, and really, if the common users opinion or idea is debatable, it shouldn't go ignored, that just chases people away and makes the wiki get more and more of a bad name. Other then that, the anon vote shouldn't be allowed, too many ways that could make a vote biased and mess allot of stuff up. I don't really have much say on anything else, as 4 times outa 5 im clueless on wtf its about, and when i ask im ignored...But, yea, we need some change around here.--Emiko~<3 18:41, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Very well said. I remember being a new user, and the feeling of exclusion was extremely discouraging. We are all a part big or small. And it's not so much a change of rules as it needs to be a change of attitude.-- 18:47, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Simply saying that there's an issue doesn't help one bit. If you are been ignored then post some a specific case where that happened so it can be properly addressed, or else your complain will just keep on being ignored. Also, if you are clueless about what's going on then the first step is figuring out what's going on. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 19:22, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I ask, and ask, and ask, but i never gen an answer...idk what else im supposed to do without getting into trouble, i try and try to make myself noticed, but it dosent work most the time, thus why im posting here to try and make SOMETHING work...--Emiko~<3 19:53, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Again, we can't do anything about it until you show us a specific instance. Just saying you were ignored isn't going to accomplish nothing. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 20:01, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Specific instance? well lets see...last night, when you were all going on about B-crats, i put in my opinion a few times and didnt get notices, as well as ALOT of the other debates ive seen and tried to help out with, as well as just with common questions to admins or a pm--Emiko~<3 20:14, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

You know Limmie, you cant always have evidence for everything, especially for a way someone is made to feel. Might be an idea to assume good faith. At the moment you are coming across as very demanding and aggressive, expecting a person to quantify the reasoning behind there view. This is one of the reasons why the little guy feels like they is getting shot down all the time, simply attitude and demeanor. Remember, it isn't just what you say, but also how you say it. 20:54, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I'm doubting him, and I'm not demanding *evidence* (as in that I'm doubting his word). I want a clear, specific example because we need a concrete case to analyze and understand what exactly is he talking about. Right now all we have is that he's feeling left out, not by whom, when, where, in which circumstance, etc. If all we have are feelings, then there's just nothing we can do. We need to at least know the context of what happened, because otherwise it could be a myriad of causes, including simple misunderstanding. A clear description of an instance, including who were involved, would help identifying that. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 21:42, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

As a Victim of bullying in life in general, sometimes there aren't specific cases, it is just a general matter. Overall treatment, how you are made to feel.-- 21:49, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

The associated actions that cause certain emotions in some people do not always come with "evidence". It is subjective - some people may not care about a statement while it bothers someone else for aeons. I know I have taken certain things said by others too harshly sometimes too. -ΣΔ^{Let's talk!} 21:53, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

@Emiko - I understand your concerns. Chat was moving very fast last night as it was an important topic and there were many people trying to get their say. I even had to apologize when you PMed me and ask your forbearance for me to continue in the conversation. Again, I apologize. It's often the case in chat, when that much is going on, that people's comments can fly by unnoticed. You've done the right thing, though, by coming here and voicing your concerns in a forum where they will get individual attention. As others have pointed out above, personal concerns are often as much about feeling a certain way rather than any particular instance one can point their finger at. No one should ever imply or state that an other person's feelings do not have merit. Do you have any other cases than last night where you felt your views were not taken seriously? If there is anything else specific you can point us to, that would help us understand where you're coming from. Don't forget, also, that it can often be the case where one makes a statement, and doesn't get much response because the other agree with the point and don't feel it even needs debate. Please don't take the lack of attention to your views as proof that they are dismissed entirely. If there's anything I can do to help, or to help you voice your concerns so they are clearly understood, let me know. The Gunny 22:22, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I've never had any trouble making myself heard, not IRL and let alone on the internet, so this is completely alien to me. I can see I'm obviously not qualified to handle this so I'll just stay out of it from now on. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 22:32, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you're speaking up, Emiko. 23:17, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

No offence intended here Emiko but when you are in chat at the same time as I am you don't tend to actively participate in conversation. I have tried to speak with you but the most you come out with is "meep" and other random things lol. I haven't really seen you contribute to a greater extent (as I said, this is when I am in chat so I can't speak for other instances) but I know I try to speak with you. Just get involved in conversations as much as possible and don't take it personally if you are ignored, we all are at some point or another :) "Even In Death May You Be Triumphant" 19:36, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Walkthroughs

I agree in general principle of the exclusion of strategy and hints from main articles. We do have a place where exploits can be listed, but I'm not certain if there are any other areas of the wiki that cover strategies and hints. Are there other Fallout wikis that specialize in this sort of thing? If so, could we achieve the same ends by doing a better job of pointing users who wish to see walkthroughs in that direction? Or does anyone feel it more important to have that kind of content here (possibly in a special area) to increase traffic? The Gunny 23:23, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Was Strategy going to be the remit of the Wasteland Suvrivival guide wiki? There's also Fallout Answers to give help on an ad hoc basis.Agent c 00:02, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

The Wasteland Survival Guide Wiki has been dead for a while now but I'd be more than willing to resurrect it if people were willing to contribute to it. --RAM 02:30, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

The only place for strategies can only be talk pages. MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 19:59, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

We had video walkthroughs in the past but we could not find someone who could make the videos without 15 extra minutes of "hey look at me run and shoot this fun gun". Honestly some of the articles can be cleaned up a bit for the walkthroughs. And besides, when I started Fallout 3, I would print the page and go from there. Also The Wasteland Survival Guide Wiki was supposed to fill the strategy part out.--Kingclyde 10:54, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Sysop/Known user privileges

“You're fine to argue your point, but don't go putting down the person you're debating with by saying things such as "Your argument is weak, futile, stupid" ect. That's not debating, that's just being a dick.”— The Nemesisx

I'd like to point out that I am in all right to point out that my opponents argument in a debate is weak. That's an integral part of debating, proving your opponents arguments wrong. Calling the argument "stupid" is a bit erring on the wrong side, indeed, but weak is in no way wrong or "dickish". Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Simply put, please refrain from calling another argument stupid/pathetic etc. If it's weak, just tell them that they don't make a good argument. I know it's hard not to snap at people sometimes (I have to do it all the time) but in the end you need to treat others the way you want to be treated. 03:14, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

And I have no problem with people calling my argument weak if they can motivate why it's weak. I already concluded that calling someone's argument "stupid" is borderline dickery, and calling it pathetic is really just... odd. Beyond that, I don't snap. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"} 06:06, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I guess weak is an odd term to use. But I've seen some cruel things said to anonymous users and lesser-known users before in regards to their opinions by admins, such as:

“Can you read? Go back to beating 12 year olds on CoD.”— Cartman, after a user asked what was wrong with Fallout 3.

“Cease posting uncreative bullshit until you figure out how to create something interesting.”— Tagaziel, referring to someone's idea for Fallout 4

I'm sure there's some other crap that's been said over the years, probably heaps coming from Yakov. Hell, I'll admit that even I've snapped at a user or two before. But the point is that if admins can say stuff that would get a normal user/anon banned, then we really shouldn't be saying it. 06:29, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Those are some pretty... brusque comments, I agree, but I'd like to differentiate between name calling towards someone and something.

Let's just say that you, for some inexplicable reason, were to believe in Santa. Most people would call that both naive and stupid, agreed? Was I to say that "that's rather stupid, Rob", then most people wouldn't react, other than possibly to agree. Calling a computer idiotic, calling a mug shitty or calling a game stupid are things that are allowed, so why should not thought concepts be treated the same? Concepts of thought, such as ideas, opinions and whatnot can be considered "things", can they not?

Calling someone an idiot, imbecile or stupid is an insult to their person, an ad hominem, and we must have none of that, but calling their idea dumb or something like that is in no way an insult to their person. It is your expressed belief that the concept they have created is dumb in some way or another. It's nothing beyond calling a drawing or game dumb. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Thanks for doing a Fox News and posting that comment completely out of context without explanation. -- 16:57, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't completely out of context. I'll let the picture speak for itself. 05:03, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest there is no excuse for an admin to act in that manner to a user. You are an admin, you have a responsibility to the wiki and the users of the wiki to act in a professional manner. This is not the first I've seen of it. I hate to say it but if admins and chat mods cannot fallow the rules and treat the users with some sort of respect then things need to change.--Kingclyde 10:51, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between acting as a professional and coddling every child that posts uncreative bullshit thinking it's the next best thing since sliced bread. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 17:09, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

No Yes Man, allow me to let the actual blog speak for itself:

http://fallout.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_blog:The_letter_Q/Ideas_for_fallout_4&page=3#comm-216623

Now bare in mind that by this point on this very same blog topic many other users and myself had written essay upon essay about the problems with Fallout 3, and then this kid comes along asking what's actually wrong with the game as if he'd just brought some kind of new powerful topic of discussion to the table. And then in an implied comparison between New Vegas and 3 he notes that "at least fallout 3 wasn't a snooze fest". Now, Fallout: New Vegas is the game which is much more focussed on dialogue, politics, subtle character motivations and grey morality as opposed to the unintelligent black and white action fest of Fallout 3. The CoD comparison is hardly any kind of huge leap and the "online CoD 12 year olds" is a well known stereotype. I completely agree with Tagaziel, when someone is behaving like a fool I don't have to gently coddle them and nod my head if I disagree with their silly point.

I'm getting sick of the expectation that all of us admins need to be emotionless neutral robots which I'm seeing much more frequently now. I didn't break any rules, and the "be polite" guideline is perfectly okay but I don't simply respect everyone I run into as respect is something that I believe is earned and not given away freely, why the hell should I deeply admire someone who I know nothing about? Being polite and holding respect for someone are two very distinct things and this is something several admins have agreed with me on in past discussions. This "Yes Man, leader of the people" lark is becoming quite boring indeed and it's good to know you set aside that quote of mine for future reference. I really don't understand or like this sudden attitude on the wiki that all new users must be mollycoddled to within an inch of their lives and it's something we all need to move on from. -- 20:40, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe respect was the wrong choice but you sure as hell wasn't addressing him in a polite manner. Once again you are an admin and need to be professional. I really don see how he was "behaving like a fool", and you do have a tendency to egg people into saying random crap and then ban them. I've seen that myself. There is a time when one knows when to shut the fuck up and not continuing to add fuel to the fire. In all reality, all you had to say is "we already discussed this in another blog". That damn easy. Just work on your attitude and how you handle things, that's all I'm saying. Cheerio.--Kingclyde 20:50, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

And that's why I gave that entire explanation about the blog, for him to ask at that point was quite aggravating, and yes, I was angry. What do you know, I'm human after all and being given administrator privileges didn't completely remove my emotions. I'm perfectly professional elsewhere but when it comes to debate I think some level of passion and bluntness is allowed, especially when someone is repeating the same point over and over again. In my eyes asking what's wrong with the game while completely ignoring the dozens of arguments on the same topic is acting like a fool, yes. It wasn't even another blog, it was the same one. And find an example of where I ban someone after egging them on apart from when Zerginfestor completely misunderstood everything I said, which I went to great effort to explain. Attacking someone's argument and criticising its weaknesses or stupidity is no justification for someone to turn around and insult me directly for holding a contrasting viewpoint and defeating their own, which quite rightly results in a ban. -- 21:06, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Cartman, I'm sorry if the change I'm trying to make means you can't treat people like crap over something as pointless as what game they like, but believe it or not, other people have opinions and feelings too. So if the guy wants to say he likes Fallout 3, big deal. Let him say it. You don't need to constantly reinforce the fact that you hate the game at every chance because frankly, that's the thing that's getting boring. It was boring back when I joined this Wiki and it's still boring now.
I didn't set that quote aside. I took a screenshot of it when you told me it was out of context. So don't start making up stuff to pretend like you're the victim here. I'm not saying we have to treat new users like babies, I'm saying we have to stop treating them the way you and others have been treating them. Besides, you're an inactive administrator. You chose to leave this place to be at the Vault. So I don't see why you care what new rules we put into place here because frankly you've made your choice, so stick to it.
Oh, and this:
"Attacking someone's argument and criticising its weaknesses or stupidity is no justification for someone to turn around and insult me directly for holding a contrasting viewpoint and defeating their own"
The image shows you doing EXACTLY that. He said he likes Fallout 3 more than the other games so you called him a child and implied that he was too stupid to read. So, stop talking crap, please. 01:40, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

If you ever actually paid attention to any of these arguments, it was about criticisms and comparisons of the game. When someone says they "like" Fallout 3 I don't suddenly launch into a personal attack, there isn't much I can say to someone who says they "like" a game outside of "okay" or asking them why they hold that view. I enjoy debating the merits and shortcomings of the games here and if that offends you then too bad. If someone responds with an argument that I think is insubstantial then yes, I'm not going to deeply admire said person and will point out that I think their argument is insubstantial. And I don't know how many times I've tried to explain the difference between hate and critique to people who quite clearly don't want to understand. Again, I enjoy debate. It strikes me as a little strange how "it's boring now" despite the fact that I probably haven't argued about the shortcomings of the game on this website for months now, so obviously I'm doing such a good job reinforcing that "hatred" that you think it's still something I regularly do, so don't tell me that I "don't need to" when I'm not doing it anyway.

"Set that quote aside" didn't mean saving the image, it meant making note of the quote for future use in the first place, unless you tracked it down specifically for this. I don't care if you think that pointing out how you've quoted me out of context somehow makes me look like I'm playing the victim, because from my point of view I'm just telling the truth. I gave the link to the actual blog itself too to support my claim, and explained why my comment was so blunt, e.g. the aggravation over being asked the same question ten dozen times. I don't want you to view me as a victim as I don't want or care about your sympathy. Of course I can't explain how I feel my statement has been taken out of context as the big bad Cartman who dares to challenge opinions and engage in debate can't even attempt to defend himself because of all the poor Fallout 3 fans he may have offended in the past by being cruel enough to have a different opinion! Oh my, I should have known, everyone is equal except those who disagree with you, right? We must stop this cruel treatment of new users at once, we need one cohesive viewpoint that all users must take so that conflict never happens again and new users don't have to feel threatened by the reality that people tend to be different. Maybe we should vote on it.

Now, regarding how the change affects me and how I supposedly don't want it to go ahead because I suddenly won't be allowed to challenge them (or treat them like crap in your view), it's a little strange that I specifically stated and explained at length that admin power and influence should be limited to wiki management related issues while other personal opinions aren't given any more weight, isn't it? Strange, one would almost think that you've completely guessed at my motivations rather than actually reading anything I said on the matter. I'm terribly sorry that you find discussion of the games on a wiki about the series to be pointless, I should probably have focussed more of that time fighting for anon voting rights or campaigning for a higher level of friendship and love so nobody feels left out.

"The image shows you doing EXACTLY that. He said he likes Fallout 3 more than the other games so you called him a child and implied that he was too stupid to read. So, stop talking crap, please."

Hmm, what a conclusive analysis, made even more remarkable by the fact that I already gave an explanation. Just for you, I'll give another one. Firstly, I didn't call him a child, I said "go back to beating 12 year olds on CoD". Are you really trying to tell me you've never heard of the stereotype that online CoD gaming is dominated by high-pitched children? It was just a sterner way of telling him his gaming time would be better spent playing CoD after completely writing off any merit New Vegas had outside of action and explosions which he clearly missed from his time playing Fallout 3, so I offered a similar game -- any of the 39 in the Call of Duty series. And I'm sorry but he asked a question that had been asked repeatedly below his own comment, something that had been explained at length and in detail, something he would have seen if he bothered to actually find out the answer to his question. So... quite clearly he did have some trouble reading there didn't he? Taking me out of context and attempting some kind of superficial analysis of my comment screams more "crap" than anything I've said here, although I wouldn't have thought it appropriate to have addressed you in such a way funnily enough. But you did a good enough job of showing it without my help anyway.

It's amazing that you bring up the fact that other people have opinions and feelings when this fact is ignored by most of the typical users encountering a comment even slightly critical about Fallout 3. I'm all for different opinions, it makes for interesting arguments. It would just be nice if the other side felt the same way, and anyone who has ever been pounced on by an angry Fallout 3 fan knows exactly what I'm talking about. In fact I'm seeing the same reaction from you now, for daring to hold a contrasting view. Also, for your information Wikia changed my status to "inactive admin" without any word of my own after the fork when they intended to remove the admins but were dissuaded by Scarface. Even if I did use The Vault (a wiki I have had no time to edit anyway), who are you to tell me where I can go and what I can do because of a choice I made for my own reasons which you had no insight into? I had no idea I signed a legally binding contract forbidding me from coming back and seeing how the place was going and offering some kind of insight, the great Yes Man forbids it. Once you leave you can never come back! Amazing isn't it, everyone is equal -- but you're an inactive admin. Why should you care, how dare you, go away, you made your choice so stick to it, etc., etc., it's all the same. I say again, everyone is equal and everyone's vote and opinion counts -- except when they disagree with Yes Man's. -- 07:50, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Stop trying to make this all about you. Now you're clearly being a dick. I don't know if it's because you know you're in the wrong, or you just want to cause more trouble than you're worth.

It's really simple, Cartman. NOBODY has the right to treat people the way you do. Not you, not me, not new users or old users. So it's really, really simple. Just stop doing it. I don't know HOW that's so hard for you, but clearly it is or you wouldn't be having this little spat.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to help this place out. But here you are, sticking your fingers in everything trying to make a mess of it. Oh, and If you're an ACTIVE admin, then why aren't you acting like one?

I'm here for equality. So, generally, I'm going to protest the fact that you want to keep things the way they are and belittle people for their opinions. You say it's under the guise of a debate, but that would imply the other party WANTS to debate. Instead, it's just Cartman ONCE AGAIN telling people that Fallout 3 is so inferior to everything else. I'm CLEARLY not the only one fed up with your bullshit, so why you continue is beyond me.

I came across that quote when looking for examples to this rule. I didn't keep it in the back of my mind as you suspect I did. That's just stupid, Cartman. Even you know that.

I know the minute you read this you'll give yet another huge long message about how you're right and I'M the one who is a tyrant for god knows why, but frankly, I don't give a fuck anymore what you say because I'm just so over you constantly trying to keep this place the way YOU want it and not caring about other people.

So, go ahead. Say what you want. But everyone can see that you're just being a dick. Have fun writing up a huge, shit-filled response like you always do. 08:06, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me this is some kind of joke. I'm being absolutely serious, I really can't see how you can post that comment in good faith after what you've accused me of. And if you're going to complain about the length of the comment then stop reading now and save yourself the trouble. I'm terribly sorry if my responses tend to be a bit long, but I do actually like to at least try to cover everything in some detail.

Yes, don't defend yourself when I'm throwing accusations at you because it's not all about you at the end of the day, we should be talking about the lovely weather or something else completely unrelated and ignore the fact that these accusations and character attacks have been slung so freely. Again, expressing an opinion that conflicts with your own isn't allowed, and now in fact it makes me a dick. It's amazing how emotion driven all of your responses have become, and then you accuse me of having a spat after throwing up such a tantrum of pure ad hominem hypocrisy. A spat why? Because I have to stop "treating users like crap" by daring to present an opposite viewpoint without gently easing them into it? Despite the fact that I've argued twice now about how I don't think admin influence should extend beyond site management? How remarkably strange. More trouble than I'm worth? I thought everyone was equal? Hmm. And yes, nobody has the right to disagree with someone else's opinion and engage in passionate debate out of fear of offending, I'll bear that in mind.

Unlike you just now, I don't just fly off of the handle and insult people just for daring to disagree with me, and I actually do attempt to spark some form of intelligent debate and support my viewpoint. And yes, inevitably sometimes it does sadly fly over the head of some individuals such as the user addressed in the quote you found who decided to ignore everything up to that point (and I actually did provide the possibility that you tracked that quote down in my previous argument).

And then we get to the root of the issue don't we. I'm here "messing it all up", in your moment in the limelight I dare to present an opposing view. At the end of the day it all comes down to this doesn't it, the fact that you disagree with my viewpoint and can't stand its expression. You certainly aren't presenting a good case regarding myself as the big bad monster trying to stifle creative thought are you? I never claimed you were a tyrant, I just disagreed with you. Shock horror. At least I know that's how you see me anyway, I'm sure that will keep me up at night.

I am perfectly within my rights to present an argument to someone when they present their own view, and whether or not they or somebody else responds to that in kind is their own choice. They aren't forced to reply, I lack the ability to hold a gun to someone's head through the internet as of this moment in time. When you post a comment on the internet you're leaving it open to criticism, there is no magical barrier to stop this and quite frankly I enjoy the freedom. Unlike you, not everyone fears getting into arguments and some do in fact enjoy them (we have a few admins on the team who share this opinion too), as I remember you've stated very clearly in the past that you try to avoid them at all costs. And that's perfectly fine, because I'm not forcing you into one. Again you say I'm "continuing" to argue the shortcomings of Fallout 3 despite my months of blog inactivity, and also amusingly enough mere hours ago several users in chat were talking about my attitude and decided they wouldn't change me and appreciate the bluntness. Funny that. You can ask Ghost for the log if you don't believe me, but at the end of the day it all just comes down to opinion again, whether you like or dislike my attitude. But ultimately, your own answer to that question makes no difference to me.

And on what grounds do you ask what I'm doing as an active administrator? I stopped actively editing a while ago since losing the great amount of spare time I had, alongside my eventual unwillingness to contribute to Wikia's profit margins. And then despite that, when I am around I will still ban vandals when I see them, provide help and explanations to those who need it, and occasionally help keep chat in line. So, as I asked you before, why is my vote and opinion any less valid than anyone else's?

If I know I'm in the wrong, why am I not the one whose argument degenerated into such emotion fuelled ad hominem drivel? Why am I not the one who has displayed obvious hypocrisy by attacking someone for their opinion while forbidding them from doing the same thing? Why am I not the one crying about how much of a "dick" the other person is with his "shit-filled responses"? Your reply is quite frankly disgusting, and definitely ban worthy. No other user would get away with calling someone a dick repeatedly, and then trollishly claim that they'll just give a "shit-filled response" like they always do. So in the name of equality, go and ban yourself. -- 09:30, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Oh, my response is ban-worthy? My response is ban worthy? Fuck you. I will ban myself, just to give myself time away from you. If you can honestly say that MY response was ban-worthy, and STILL act like you're the hero, then frankly I don't know if I want to stay here anymore. Oh, and the comment about you being a dick isn't trolling. THERE'S ACTUALLY A RULE AGAINST BEING A DICK. If you were a half-decent administrator you'd know that. I'm apparently the troll when you CLEARLY have been trolling this place with your cruel comments, the way you BREAK RULES AND GET AWAY WITH IT, and when you INSULT ME TO MY FACE you're the one who complains when I get upset. Your responses are shit-filled because you honestly make up crap on the spot so that you seem like you know what you're talking about. I hope you realise what a complete and utter imbecile you are, you hypocritical ass. Goodbye, and I hope you're happy. I'm gone from this Wiki for good, congratulations. 11:09, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

By now both of you are in the wrong - and yes both of your responses are now being emotionally driven. Yessie, that you're now willing to hurt others and run off to the wilderness in your augment against Cartman isn't exactly a mature response. Cartman, I think you're the only person on the Wiki who doesn't have an issue on at least some level with that comment. Just both of you let it rest and stop being so damned childish. I would also point out that either of you banning the other is a clear and obvious conflict of interest. Agent c 12:30, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I remained emotionally detached while writing those points intentionally, I think that's important to note. I haven't conveyed a sense of anger at all. Anyway, I'm off to write these defences that are apparently needed. -- 22:35, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Popularity votes

“We gladly give our positive vote to our nominating friend, but we are not true about it. And we do not see for ourselves if they are really worthy of upholding such authority, and yet we do not know yet if his authority will be used for a glorious act or an act that will make us regret eventually. - That's what human nature of voting is.”

This is what the community moderating problem is: popularity votes. Not trying to provoke emotions of people but I have seen people vote people because of their influence, and their reputation on this wiki. This should end. And I have seen some truthful users who have their right of being a chat moderator, and/or a moderator. This is the thing I have seen on the previous events, previous weeks and previous months and I haven't had the chance to break my silence and speak up about it. Here it goes. I have seen some users who have a lot of wiki friends, also people who have less. I have seen those people being told by their friends to run for moderatorship and win it because their friends voted for them. And what the basis for running for a position? Popularity is more than work because they have friends. I saw some people with less wiki friends run, and they did not win the right, but their contribution have proven that they should obtain the right. That's what I have seen. Until onto this day, that basis haunts me. And some of those people who run can say that they know the rules. They can say that, but truthfully, it's either they can say that or they cannot say that. Some say that they do, and some say that they don't. This time, the wiki needs to take action. We can't change the vote of others, that's correct. And what they say about us can affect the tides of the request. A man with the positive edits but a negative personality can win? Most say that they can't win the position because of their personality, but they deserve the right of being in a certain position because of their edits. We have to base work over popularity, and reputation. The basis of popularity over work ends here. Right here, right now. ^{"Leave a message."}

I appreciate how you feel Gauzz, and in theory you are correct in saying that votes should be on merit. But in practice, popularity will always be a factor. Even in real world politics charisma and likability are studied down to a microscopic level.

In my estimation at least, Yessie and 2Bears are quite popular, but failed in their b/c vote, so popularity doesn't always win the day. I don't see anyone campaigning on the "you all like me" platform, but always seem to justify their nominations on their record.

The only way to eliminate popularity is to require all votes to be justified, now whilst some of us kind of do that in comments to help encourage others to vote with us, making this manditory I believe is wrong.

I really don't see a way to solve this concern. Agent c 16:26, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

The only way you could do that would be to make the requests anonymous without naming the applicant and just posting their contributions and qualifications. Does anyone want to do that? I reckon no. The Gunny 16:46, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I can't really see that working as there may be some valid issues that the nominee will not put in their request, but may be uncovered by others - we can only do this of the candidate is a name. Agent c 18:01, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't reductio enough to the absurdum. I wasn't seriously suggesting that. I was trying to point out the flaw in any argument that would suggest any vote could be based solely on merit. My wife votes for Presidents based on who's better looking. At least we don't have that. The Gunny 21:45, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns Gauzz, and I share some of them too. But there's no realistic, pragmatic way to combat so-called "popularity votes". We can only encourage people to look at things objectively and for applicants to not take vote results too personally. -ΣΔ^{Let's talk!} 21:40, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Popularity votes needs to be suppressed. A lot of users here do not see it. Only a few. I am so fed up, and I've had enough of this for a period of time. Popularity votes isn't real democracy, it's more like on favoured persons get into power because of their wiki friends. ^{"Let's talk."}

I'm sorry Gauzz, but as we've outlined above, Popularity votes are a part of democracy no matter how much we may not like it. It would be wrong to police peoples thoughts, dare I say Tyranical, and such a system of excluding votes that someone decides were made for the wrong reason would be open to the same abuse, suddenly we have a complaint or five every vote that somones vote was suppressed because someone wanted somones friend to get in, or wanted someone to fail because they didn't like them. We can see where you're coming from, but I don't think you see the implications of what you are suggesting. Agent c 11:29, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

But we should tone it down, and we couldn't change the concept of voting style of people, but they themselves can, and I highly doubt that they will change. ^{"Let's talk."}

So yeah, what you've managed to establish is that it's wrong, we should tone it down, but there's nothing we can do. But that's basically it. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

As I said (at least, I think I said it), we can't really police this one. Popularity comes into play, yes, but if someone isn't good at the job don't vote yes just because you like them. It's just a trust-based rule, so I trust you all to vote fairly, please. 03:18, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I need to say this; I wonder who this is aimed at? Because I know that you accused me of only gaining my position because of "popularity". Here is the thing Gauzz, to be a chat-mod you need a personality where users respect you and listen to you when you ask them to behave. If you are popular, you are respected therefore you make a good chat-mod. I vote on people because of their ability to do the job, not because I like them. It seems like you still hold a grudge that other users have told you that you wouldn't make a good mod/admin because of your attitude, so no offence but it seems rather personal "Even In Death May You Be Triumphant" 19:29, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm growing tired of this scapegoating going on re popularity votes.
Do popularity votes happen, yes. Do they happen at the rate they're currently being blamed for things: No. On some of the current votes I have heard people on both sides of the discussion dismiss votes against their position as simply "popularity votes", mentioning no names or votes I refer to the User guidelines which says to assume good faith.
Gauzz, I can't help but wonder if your passion for this issue is at all linked to the feelings that you communicated in a recent blog posting. If you need to talk, my "office hours" are listed on my talk page. Agent c 19:49, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Concerns

Anons should absolutely not have the right to vote as they remain alienated from the community for as long as they remain anonymous. If they care about the community and want to vote, all they have to do is register an account. It's quick, it's free. We shouldn't be allowing people who for all we know could have stumbled upon the wiki with no intention of ever coming back to vote and make substantial changes to the rules etc, not to even mention the potential problems this could create with sock-puppetry and proxies. It's important to remember that this is their own choice, they aren't some kind of low caste lacking social mobility and the sentiment that we occasionally see here about "the oppression of the anonymous" is quite amusing indeed.

An important part of this wiki is the meritocratic element, and admins are admins because they know more about the functions of the wiki than the average user. Admin-only polls are perfectly valid as there are some areas the common user may not understand well enough and should not have a say on. This isn't hard to grasp, not all users are equal on a wiki, that is why not all users automatically have admin powers. It's about trust and knowledge, admins are trusted enough to wield the tools and knowledgeable enough to have passed their application, and are quite clearly dedicated with the standard thousands-upon-thousands of edits the average admin has here. There is a reason why they have more say, and I was fighting this corner long before I actually became one myself. Meritocracy is much more important to the function of the wiki than this idea of absolute democracy is. -- 02:17, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Also I'm not particularly sure why we should feel sorry for the Emiko and Old World Relics users. They don't edit much, don't talk in community forums or blog/news sections much either, and spend the majority of their time in chat. If they feel left out, how is it anyone else's fault? They have a vote just like anyone else, and surely if they want more of a community presence this is something they can work on. What is it they supposedly feel left out of? -- 01:46, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's really not for us to say how people should feel. If they feel left out, we can't just say "Stop" and all of a sudden they'll feel included. Yes, they have a vote. But what does a vote matter when you feel like nobody even cares about it? And the thing about equality, that we're not equal, is exactly what we're trying to fix. It should be an equal place. Not saying that everyone should be an admin, because that's just stupid. Not everyone wants to be an admin, but it doesn't mean that those who do want to be admins should be treated better. Otherwise, I appreciate you having your say, Cart. I'm sincerely glad to see everyone's opinions on the matter. 01:51, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking what they feel left out of, that's my question. And the "everyone as an admin" point was to demonstrate how stupid the idea is, and that admins are in fact held to a higher standard of trust. And no, as far as maintenance goes I do think the opinions of admins should be regarded as higher than the normal user for reasons I've already said. I don't mean "opinions" as in everything they feel about any subject, just the views they hold when it comes to running the wiki, changes and voting topics. Equality elsewhere (e.g. blog comments, discussions, etc.) and an expectation to follow the rules without special allowances is fine, but at the end of the day normal users simply aren't equal to admins and shouldn't be treated as such when it comes to certain matters of site maintenance, functionality, etc. -- 02:02, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

I really liked that video idea ya mentioned, sure coulda use the help when finding stuff round Dead Money. CharlesLeCheck 22:23, March 21, 2012 (UTC)