Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Chat Moderator Request - Dead Gunner (II)


Yo all, this is Nate, otherwise known as Dead Gunner or DG, and I'm here, once again, to run for Chat Moderator rights on the wiki.

Credentials

This is a formal application, so I'll try and keep it short, sweet and to the point. The few chat moderators that we do have are all starting to get busy and not show up in chat as frequently as they used to. While it's not their fault whatsoever, it does need to be compensated for. I'm in the chat day-in and day-out and I can handle situations thrown at me without emotion or bias getting in my way. I will continue to show up frequently in the chat and do my job as necessary. I stay up relatively late so I may as well be productive if I'm not able to sleep.

In regards to my unavoidable past, while it's not necessarily true I was able to make amends with everyone I've wronged, I have tried my best to learn from my mistakes so that I never make them again. Since my last chat moderator request, I am not the same person as I have grown a significant amount in my eyes. Where was I was impulsive, over-dramatic and obnoxious, I would now like to consider myself as more laid-back and able to think things through before acting.

I have no other hopes than the hope to represent and assist the wiki as needed, so if you place your hope in my hands, I refuse to let it go to waste.

Dead Gunner's SMG JPG1 "Semper Invictus" 20:26, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

Editcount

There should have been a list of this user's edit counts here, but the edit counts feature is no longer available.

Endorsement

I, TwoBearsHigh-Fiving, fully endorse Dead Gunner's run for Chat Moderator. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving (Talk) 05:31, April 25, 2014 (UTC) With a heavy heart I recant my endorsement of this vote. I believe the integrity has been compromised, and cannot in good faith as an Administrator of Nukapedia put my name on this vote. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving (Talk) 05:47, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Vote

Yes

  1. Yes why not? you seem like a cool guy.--TOXICTORTURE (talk) 20:28, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Yes You have made mistakes, but none of them were intentional or harmful to towards this wiki. Looking back at everything, I still trust you enough for the Chat Moderator position, and I know you will be fair with them. But if you do mess up again, just remember that this is your last chance - you will not just lose the rights, but also your chat privileges entirely. Good luck friend, and I trust you will not disappoint however way this vote turns out. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:03, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Yes I know you would never intentionally harm someone verbally, you show playful banter more than anything, and I don't really agree with the "we have enough chat-mods as it is" card. I trust you in this position Nate. Brandon Fox (talk) 22:50, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Yes I have known you your whole time on the Wiki Dead Gunner. I fully trust your ability to hold this position. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving (Talk) 01:01, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Yes only request in the last few that actually make sense. AND THATS THE GOD'S HONEST TRUTH Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate 02:20, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Yes Not really seeing anything convincing me to vote no, and we do need a mod to cover the time zone you're in. I hate leaving chat at night without a mod to cover me, but you're always still on. - Chris With no background 04:00, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  7. Yes Sic itur ad astra. --Skire (talk) 15:45, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  8. Yes I think you have come far since your last request. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 16:06, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  9. Yes Dead Gunner is the moderator Nukapedia deserves, but not the one it needs right now. But seriously, he's a chat regular and tends to be fairly level minded with things like this. I see no reason why he shouldn't be a mod. Boltman BOLTMAN FOREVER 18:39, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  10. Yes Nate is level-headed and trustworthy. He'd be a great mod. BILLYOCEAN Wanna talk? 18:21, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  11. Yes and that's the god's honest truth Sweet Jones (talk) 18:22, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  12. Yes Nate'll do a damn fine job, and that's the God's honest truth. Higgey the Scotsman (talk page) 18:29, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  13. Yes Gunner will do just peachy, and that's the god's honest truth. Enclavesymbol 19:36, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  14. Yes As long as you don't abuse your authority --Buddha392 (talk) 20:47, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  15. Yes VOTE REINSTATED. I have looked into the logs where a certain chat-banned user has said you harassed them and found nothing but tiny bits of playful banter from both ends. In the last few weeks I have noticed that you are on during times where chat is bustling. We need people in there to keep out the riff-raff. You have my vote for yes (And that's the honest to god truth), use it well. Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Moderator..." Some say this user used to be a Moderator... 20:30, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

Excluded Votes

No

  1. No I can't see any grounds at all to support this request. Firstly, I don't believe we have any shortage of mods, I havent had to appoint a temporary mod in a long time, and we've just had an influx of applications. Even if I could be convinced an opening existed, Foxes should not guard henhouses; you've shown bad behaviour in the past and in at least one case used blackmail to hinder an investigation into your misuse of rights on another wiki. I havent seen any growth, in fact I think you have regressed. In the past few months you gave up the responsibility you did have, and I dont see any sign of you seeking more (other than a grab for power). You're one ban away from permenently being blocked from chat, and after your recent interaction with fireburn in chat (which provoked him into getting himself banned) and following on your respective talk pages are in my view lucky not to be banned at this time. In Short, you're the wrong person for a job that isn't vacant. Agent c (talk) 20:31, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
  2. No I think we have more than enough mods currently.--File:LegionEmblem.png "legio patria nostra" 20:35, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
  3. No You are often there, that's true for sure, but I simply don't have trust in you as a chat mod. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 21:51, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
  4. No --NukaTurtle (talk) 21:53, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
  5. No I like you Gunner, as a person, but the way you handled the dealings with Fireburn and just general conversation with others don't lead me to have faith in your abilities to moderate. It may be that I just see your interactions more now, but seemed way more laid back when you were doing the polls. Either way, I can't say yes. --MountHail (talk) 22:42, April 25, 2014
  6. No I have no faith in your abilities and you have done little to nothing to sway my lack of faith. I would've hoped this had become evident after the third request, but I do not think you will ever be chat mod material. You have demonstrated your inability or unwillingness to adapt from experience and have, in my mind, remained the same person since I met you. And I would never give that person chat mod rights. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 00:22, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  7. No Honestly, what I have to say is simple and to the point, what happen with me was my fault, and I am not going to blame you, but in that situation you clearly could have played the bigger man and said "Okay" and backed away, and maybe this was a long time ago, when I mentioned so casually not to start a bashful conversation, you managed to go out on an all out rampage because of your personal beliefs, which I respect, It was so bad, that I had to say sorry for what happened even though it was YOUR fault. I still think there is room for improvement but for right now. No. Sorry. --I really need to get a signature (talk) 01:58, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  8. No I am saying no to you we have had quite a lot of people run for it lately I'm not saying we have to many just saying that there have been a lot of request lately and it needs to settle down a bit and I don't trust you enough because I don't know you that much and because of bad things I have heard about. Enclavesymbol Vice President Spocklan116 07:53, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  9. No —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanMakhoul (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~! - (Reinstated. Edits prior to Vote being called. 2x on April 21. The standard we've operated by for a very long time is at least 1 prior to the vote. Agent c (talk) 14:33, April 26, 2014 (UTC))
  10. No As per all other no votes. Not only have you been in chat far less frequently your behaviour has regressed to the point of causing conflict with other users. Honestly, barring an entire complete shift in your personality I can't see myself ever trusting you with chat mod rights. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  03:51, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral While ordinarily I would not play the "we have too many of blah blah blah" card, I'm inclined to see the influx of new mods and the times at which they are serving, and right now we just don't have the need. However, while I say that I do think that perhaps you deserve a chance at the position, though the reasoning in Chad's no vote concerns me. I need to do a little digging into the things he is discussing before I make a solid judgement on the matter. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:35, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
Excluded Votes
  1. Neutral Some things have come up (nothing to do with the situation at hand in the comments) where I feel something wrong with this request. While I am close to yes, something is off. I will change my vote at the end to my honest decision. Right not I am at 85% Yes and 15% No. Dead Gunner, if you see this, please get a hold of me. We need to talk. Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Moderator..." Some say this user used to be a Moderator... 22:41, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Comments and Questions

Suspended vote

-bleep196- and I believe this vote should be temporarily suspended due to problems in chat. There are currently allegations of people attempting to rig this vote and people who voted yes being threatened. We are currently looking for evidence of this, and are attempting to contact bureaucrats to discuss the matter. Paladin117>>iff bored; 04:33, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

After more discussion, it's been decided that this vote will resume as normal until some type of proof is shown. Paladin117>>iff bored; 04:51, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
I certainly hope some proof is offered. It would be very disapointing if one side was trying to throw mud on the other with a false or over exaggerated claim of threats. Edit - Looking on the log, a message of "Your dead to me" isn't a threat or a suggestion of violence, it is a statement of "disownership". Lobbing for or against votes is not new to this place, and gunner himself has been a part of such endeavours. On this "conspiracy" allegation - I was informed of the request a day ahead of it by another admin, and discussed it with one chat mod, and maybe one other admin, noone else. In any case, if this is a "conspiracy" then equally those who had agreed to support the request are also members of a conspiracy as is any person who has ever discussed another user rights request with another.Agent c (talk) 14:40, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
What could people possibly "threaten" others with across the realm of cyberspace? --Skire (talk) 15:48, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
1) If someone has power on this wiki they have the ability to threaten people with bans and such. 2) Threats don't need to be followed through for them to be threats. I could say "Sig, I am going to murder you" and that is legally a threat and harassment, neither of which do we support on this wiki. 3) Disowning people as a friend over who they voted for may as well be a threat. If I say to you "if you don't vote no on this we wont be friends anymore" I am still trying to sway your vote, which is wrong. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 16:14, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
1) Excellent way to lose your rights. 2) They need some form of consequence, which in your example, is murder (how it'll be achieved is a mystery). 3) Trying to sway people's vote is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, wrong. If that's what it takes to end a "friendship," one should question the strength of said friendship anyway. --Skire (talk) 20:34, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
In which case, this isn't a threat. It was after he voted, and wasn't made in any conditional way. Given Mel's history with Dead Gunner (Lets remember that he did blackmail her, which is a crime) its hardly suprising that she would not want to associate with someone who supported the person who did it. Agent c (talk) 16:17, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
So she can run around emotionally blackmailing whoever the fuck she feels like? If I tried to force people to vote yes on this then I would be getting in to shit over it. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 16:20, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
There is no blackmail. Not conditional, not an attempt to influence. Even if Gunner changes his mind, I doubt she will change hers now. Agent c (talk) 16:22, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Just to put this out there, and as Bleep and I have tried to explain, I never took the message as a threat. I took it as rude and harsh. I have a clear mind that the message was about my "Yes" vote on this request. I brought this to attention not because I felt intimidated, but rather hurt that just because I voted for someone who I am willing to give the chance to become a Chat mod, I lose a friend because they do not like that person. Her quarrels and hate for Dead Gunner are HERS alone. Just because you do not like someone does not mean I have to hate them too. My YES vote stands and if that means that I lose a friend, so be it. I have my right to vote for whoever the hell I want, when I want, if I want. I will not let that be taken away because of a "friend" who hates the candidate. Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Moderator..." Some say this user used to be a Moderator... 17:03, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what Gunslinger says. And, as I have tried to express, even though this is not a threat it still looks to me like an attempt to manipulate the results. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 17:05, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
I am actually not sure who coined this all as a conspiracy in the first place. Either way, I stand by Slinger and everyone that voted honestly on this. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 17:07, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, as if trying to convince others to vote a certain way is wrong or something. --Skire (talk) 20:36, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Funny story actually, this was a big fiasco at the Mass Effect wiki. One user told other users about a vote on a certain proposal (not even told them HOW to vote mind you, just about the vote itself) and they were banned and the proposal was taken to a vote by the admins. I seriously doubt Nukapedia would ever do anything this stupid, but hey, it can happen. Boltman BOLTMAN FOREVER 22:18, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. Shows how poorly managed a wiki can get. --Skire (talk) 22:22, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
I've seen worse. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 22:31, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Although I'm unaware of this situation, I offer up the wikipedia definition of blackmail:

Blackmail is an act, often a crime, involving unjustified threats to make a gain or cause loss to another unless a demand is met.

From what I can see, in this case the demand was a no vote for Gunner, the act was in this case the ending of a friendship/association, a loss to Slinger (as seen in his message above). I don't mean to drudge this up, but that seems pretty cut and dry to me, and leaves me wondering if due diligence was done on this. Perhaps this is coming from a position of ignorance on my part, so clarification would be welcome if what I described above is indeed not the case. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  04:51, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Seems I was mistaken. After reviewing evidence and discussing with other users, I withdraw my objection. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  05:21, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
Given that there was no threat, no demand, and its only natural that the acknowledged victim of blackmail be unhappy with those who choose to support the admitted blackmailer, I'm not sure how you came to that belief in the first place. Agent c (talk) 14:12, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
In the face of fairness, as it must be applied both ways, I feel it is necessary to ask for evidence of this blackmail as well. I am not suggesting it is a false claim, as I am personally well aware of the situation. But if it is going to be used a major arguing point here, the community as a whole needs to see some form of evidence, such as a confession or screencap. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 14:15, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
I refer you to Nate's moderator request where he admitted to it. Agent c (talk) 14:16, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
That works. A link should be applied then, as up until now, it has merely been hearsay. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 14:17, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
Updated now. We really should make it a rule that all previous requests (In this case, 2 moderator requests and 1 chat mod request) are linked. Most seem to do it as best practice. Agent c (talk) 14:19, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
Cannot argue with that logic. I typically do the same with my forums/blogs, and would apply that to any additional requests I make as well. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 14:22, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement